As Britain awaits a new prime minister, its cost-of-living crisis mounts

> Honestly, this article understates the situation. Everyone is bricking it.

Yeah, it's really quite bad. I'm yet to talk to anybody who isn't worried about this, from low class to upper class.

> Small businesses and charities are already receiving their new contract quotes and deciding to shut down.

Sadly we will now lose many historic institutions that COVID lockdowns didn't quite manage to kill off. Some pubs for example have been around for hundreds of years.

> And our next Prime Minister shows exactly no sign of caring about or even understanding the seriousness of the situation.

I believe I saw Boris _finally_ committing to building new nuclear power stations, but this is maybe 10 years too late. Nuclear power was such an obvious quick win in terms of energy security, green climate action and energy costs. I hope the UK is able to keep its remaining reactors online a while longer until new ones can be phased in.

> Britain has for a long time neglected energy efficiency improvements and investment in renewable energy.

Like the EU nations, the UK was designed and built to use energy in what seemed like a sustainable way. Obviously every Country in Europe is now reconsidering what to make reductions.

If anything this is quite promising for the UK's winter, as there are so many quick-win improvements to be made (assuming we can get sufficient supplies of insulation).

> The houses are the worst insulated in Europe [1].

The majority of the UK doesn't get too much below zero, spending a brief time at -10 degrees. Places in Europe can reach -30/-40 for a sustained period.

We're also talking about houses that are quite old and hard to upgrade (if not impossible due to restrictions).

1. It takes 20 years to build a nuke plant, 2 years to do wind and 6 months to do solar. Solving the problem 20 years from now is not solving the problem.

2. In case you haven't noticed, the wind subsidies are now negative. Wind subsidizes natgas, not the other way around.

3. If the lithium supply gets cut off, existing EV's don't stop working. If gasoline gets cut off, gasoline cars are stranded. EV's are crucial for self sufficiency.

It's cold. Burn the house down now!

Also in the UK. Personally I'm sick of seeing our government cosy up to authoritarian regimes because they have something we happen to want. In the UK we're particularly unlucky in that the people currently in charge don't really care if the poor in our society freeze or starve as they've stated so astutely in the recent leadership contest.

The rest of the G7 at least seem prepared to shield their population as much as possible through planning and government intervention, which is probably why they seem much less concerned.

On top of that, the answer to the pain of the current sanctions isn't to go back to relying on Russian gas. It's to pump covid levels of investment into alternatives that don't require us to prop up quasi-dictatorships in order to keep the lights on.

I'm not in the UK but we are having a similar cost of living crisis in Ireland.

I'm happy to pay the price of solidarity with Ukraine.

I work with both Russian and Ukrainian people and none of them want this war.

People are dieing and being forced out of their homes. I know this is happing everywhere but I would like to support these people: 1 because I know people in that country and 2 because like Britain in the second world war they are fighting for some form of a fair democracy.

If that means I have to buy cheaper food and not have heating.. It's a small price to pay compared to what my friends are going through.

Backing down means handing the victory to Russia, which is politically costly in the short term and probably not financially cheaper in the long term. Whether europe wants it or not, they are involved in a war, and you can't just back down in a war without consequences.

You could also argue that the current prices are just a teaser of what's coming anyway so more incentive to innovate now instead of later. Very harsh and not completely true, but I think there's a little bit of truth to it

I as an "average citizen" living in Germany care more about an idealistic notion of standing up to bullies than living in complete comfort.

I don't know about the UK, but here nobody is going to have problems putting food on the table or freezing to death this winter. [Edit: I should say, no more problems than we already have.]

My small discomfort at higher heating prices pales in comparison to the death and destruction that Russia is inflicting on Ukraine. If my small discomfort can stop that at all sooner then I am happy to face some discomfort.

I don't understand how people fail to see that our standing up for Ukraine and putting an end to this Russian war as soon as possible is also purely in our self-interests. Russia rampaging through all of Ukraine, and then Georgia, and then Kazakhstan, and then Uzbekistan, and then Finland, and then ..., and then maybe on to NATO (Poland? Balitics?) -- this is not in our interests.

"Oh, but Russia won't do that!" Yeah, that's what all the experts said about Ukraine also. No, sorry, Russia must be stopped now because Russia can no longer be trusted at all.

because if we had not done this, ukraine would have been obliterated, and russia would have been knocking at the EU's door. having war on our doorstep, and being called up because poland is being attacked is not what I want.

The Inflation issues we have are partly because of russia, partly because we have a stupidly designed pricing structure. From my understanding we only import about 20% of our gas.

However global gas price sets the entire uk's electricity price. Gas sometimes accounts for 50% -60% of the UK's electricity generation, but that shouldn't result in a 1000% rise in costs.

Because energy companies, even European ones, are making bank. So are asset owners.

Every crisis is someone's opportunity to make money off other peoples' loss. As long as their assets are safe and keep going up, nobody cares about CoL going up. Well, at least until riots happen and political extremism grows to new heights.

Come on France, 'do yer thang' (riots), we'll follow suit.

> The average citizen cares about their energy bill and putting food on the table more than some idealistic notion of standing up to bullies.

this one is based on what? on some sources or own projections?

Because we fucking hat it with Russia. Yeah we could back down and then maybe they will send us some gas and then what? What will be their demand next time?

Yes we need to deal with this crisis by constructing enough nuclear power plants that we never need power again, and that means overriding all rules about planning permissions.

This means that energy prices will be higher than before this winter, and then lower and green forever after. Technically Europe still needs to import Uranium, but we can get that from anywhere and a single ship or aircraft can transport enough for it never to be an issue.

The allies could have backed down in WWII, handing major concessions to the Axis. Would we be better off today?

Backing down to a bully will only encourage and empower it further. The current situation in Europe is status quo in poor countries, so the world isn't ending...

Counter-argument.

Why are the G7 not increasing the aid to Ukraine, to more quickly end the war and force Russia to settle?

>the sanctions have been spearheaded by the US when they are mostly shielded from Russia. Whereas for European countries, it is obvious that they are dependent on Russian gas and yet they are not willing to negotiate.

This was my problem with the Syria war too.

US: We want war! Europe you will get refugees, good luck.

> yet they are not willing to negotiate

Negociate what?

Russia has stated multiple times that the only negotiation offer they accept is the complete surrender of Ukraine:

> Russia vowed on Tuesday its assault on Ukraine would continue until Kyiv surrenders

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220628-russia-demand...

> Okay this is a genuine question but why are the G7 not backing down when clearly their populations are the ones suffering?

The G7 includes the EU as a non enumerated member. The EU, which does not include Ukraine but does include the Baltics and some Nordic states which fear for their own safety. Not to mention how intertwined the G7’s interests are with NATO.

There is a really derpy “if you ignore all the killing that’s happening in this war, it would totally make financial sense to end the sanctions” vibe to some of these comments. The people who are at risk have a say as well.

6 out of 10 Britons support sanctions against Russia.

Surprisingly, the U.K. isn’t nearly as affected as mainland Europe by Russia’s antics. But sky-high crude prices, regulatory capture and lack of storage (government neglect, again) mean that, shockingly, U.K. is going to suffer worse than Germany.

Blaming this all of this on the UK’s stance wrt Russia is mostly a move by politicians who don’t want to admit how badly they’ve messed regular governing up.

I think worth pointing out that while this is a Europe-wide issue, the challenges faced by the UK are exacerbated by a lot of other dumb shit going on - the UK is way less reliant on Russian gas than some other countries.

Aside from the obvious Brexit hangover, there is now a messy and confused series of economic policies in place and no clear leadership with regard to policies that could help tackle this issue. The quite literal absence of a functioning executive makes it difficult to take action, and even after a new PM is in place on Monday it’s not clear what’s going to happen.

At least for my part, I’m entirely happy with a massive tax increase on myself and people like me if it helps to ensure that tanks don’t roll into Romania, and my neighbours don’t starve or freeze to death over winter. The “average citizen” in any case is probably more compassionate than you give them credit for.

> when clearly their populations are the ones suffering?

Their populations, not their leaders.

The sanctions were spearheaded by europe, the US followed, initially reluctantly (Biden wanted some symbolic sanctions like freezing a few bank accounts and banning a handful of people from travel). It is european countries (and EU countries), that Putin claims are in Russia' sphere of influence (Baltic states, Poland, czech republic, etc). That stated nostalgia for lost power was easy to dismiss until 2022 (and I dismissed it). But the Ukraine invasion made it clear they cannot be dismissed anymore and if Ukraine becomes a military success for Russia, the next provocations and aggressions will target EU countries.

So no, this is not something imposed by the US, it is a policy initiated by europe, for europe's benefit, and with the support of the US.

You’ve guessed incorrectly how much the average citizen cares about standing up to Putin. Most people believe that the consequences of not standing up to him would be far worse

> The average citizen cares about their energy bill and putting food on the table more than some idealistic notion of standing up to bullies.

If that where true we would all be Nazi.

Remember when Victoria nuland said " fuck the EU" to Ukrainian authorities?

Remember when Trump imposed duties on EU?

Yeah the rich of US doesn't care.. Sorry

Gotta love the “in part”. Let’s be clear, the “part” we’re talking about is negligible.

Are you sure it wasn't because of all the trouble caused by people on bicycles?

Source?

Also, blaming that while there's a pandemic and war impacting the supply of the most critical raw materials (energy and foodstuffs) is a curious (being very generous here) choice.

Here is part of a WSJ editorial backing up my statement.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/net-zero-bankrupts-britain-hous... Net-Zero Emissions Policy Bankrupts Britain And it could do the same to the U.S., which is following a similar path. Updated Aug. 26, 2022 7:01 pm ET

Americans who fancy themselves net-zero climate advocates might want to take a look at Britain for a guide to the future. Household energy bills were expected to rise 40% this autumn, but on Friday the government regulator announced they’ll leap 80% in a single bound.

This boost follows a 54% rise in April and brings the average household’s annual bill to £3,549 ($4,208). The median household income is £31,400, which gives a sense of the growing proportion of each household’s budget that will go toward central heating, cooking and keeping the lights on. For the ruling Tories, this is a political calamity.

And that’s merely what households will spend directly on energy. Britain is also in the grip of an energy-price crisis for businesses, whose rates aren’t subject to a cap. Some small businesses report they can’t get any utility to supply them without paying a steep deposit up front, because energy companies are concerned that high prices will push more small firms into insolvency. Lower-income households in particular will bear the brunt of this as prices for goods and services skyrocket and companies lay off employees.

If you think this couldn’t happen in America, think again. The underlying cause of Britain’s energy misery is its fixation with climate goals, especially the ambition to achieve net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050. To meet that goal Britain has grown hostile to domestic energy exploration, banning shale-gas fracking and slapping windfall-profits taxes on North Sea oil and gas producers that will deter investment. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has hurt, but the U.K.’s policies made its citizens vulnerable to such a global shock.

The U.K. is belatedly building new nuclear plants, but those will take years to come online. Unreliable wind and solar raise the cost the electric grid must pay to balance supply and demand when the winds are still and the sun is behind clouds, and more than 80% of English households rely on gas rather than electricity to heat their homes. All of this drives up the cost of supplying power, and then the government adds about £153 in green levies and a 5% consumption tax directly on household bills.

Agree, the people pushing the line that it makes little or no difference are the ones who swallow the line that it's cheaper to generate electricity from wind than fossil. Subsidies distort the economics and the press selectively represents the case because of the "net zero" religion, as it's become. The technology doesn't exist yet, but lemmmings want to lead us off a cliff in order to "be on the right side of history." Don't get me wrong, I wish it were that case that we could abandon all our environmentally destructive ways, but imo, there has been a distinct lack of second order thinking when it comes to energy policy, certainly in the UK, and don't get me started on Germany. France, at least, have had successive governments who appear to care more about their citizens' wellbeing than shareholders and asset strippers.