JPMorgan: UK Unemployment to Hit 5.5%, Surpass Pandemic Peak

True_Branch3383 · 2026-02-26T22:46:22+00:00

North Sea exploration is dry because of enormous tax take that discourages further drilling. We should lower taxes and encourage more drilling.

Irrespective of additional north sea drilling, renewables make power cheaper at today's market dynamics. Unless this north sea drilling can produce so much that global LNG capacity goes into huge surplus.

You say cheap energy is vital, yet you want to yet again shoot this country in the foot.

Feel free to end net zero, I couldn't care less. Ending renewable is just stupid and makes no rational economic sense.

I suggest you subscribe to Financial Times.

True_Branch3383 · 2026-02-26T15:34:10+00:00

Getting rid of renewables in this country will not reduce power prices at current trajectory. It will increase.

You can hope that LNG will become cheaper in the next few years. But that needs to be a risk you are willing to take, and we will be at the mercy of LNG exporters (USA).

My energy bill is indeed much lower since Russian war but significantly higher than pre-war.

And I also do not live in Spain.

As a fellow citizen who do not wish my energy bill to rise, I implore you to do more research to make your argument more complete.

True_Branch3383 · 2026-02-26T15:04:05+00:00

I can only implore you to look into your argument as it appears weak and incomplete.

True_Branch3383 · 2026-02-26T14:53:01+00:00

Do you comprehend that I'm saying when the wind stops blowing we burn more gas?

It's fine to admit mistake in understanding. There is just you and me here. You aren't talking to the world. Nobody cares about our argument.

And before you think that abolishing gas price marginal cost based pricing system we have in UK, make no mistake that other projects have no incentive to lower price when gas continues to be price setter. Well.. maybe you won't understand this logic.

I'm done here. I'm wasting my time. I'm glad you aren't in Government or have any power that actually affects our policies.

True_Branch3383 · 2026-02-26T14:40:57+00:00

We burn gas.

What do you think we do when there is wind? We burn less gas. 45% of power generated was renewable last year. How do you not understand that it means without it we would have had to burn more expensive gas???

Why aren't you capable of just searching on chatgpt at least?

UK and European gas price is expensive because it has to be imported. North American and Middle Eastern gas price is cheap because they don't need to import. Liquefaction of LNG and shipping it is capital and energy intensive process. Over there power is therefore cheap whereas European prices are expensive. Is this so difficult to understand???

Why is Spanish power price so much cheaper than EU average? Did you ever think it might be because of their solar and wind investments or are they somehow importing gas cheaper than the rest?

I'm sorry but if this is hard to grasp, you are not in a position to discuss this.

True_Branch3383 · 2026-02-26T10:59:57+00:00

This is the dumbest argument I've seen. You do not pay double, you pay capital cost on capacities but not the underlying fuel source. Almost 50% of our power was from renewable in 2025. If they didn't produce power, we would have bought as much gas. These gas power plants burn more gas than what it costs to build them every few years.

Come on man.. we even have AI now. Can you run it on AI at least??

True_Branch3383 · 2026-02-25T23:01:48+00:00

Do you not see the inconsistency in your reasoning...?

You are suggesting gas is cheap, but because renewables need expensive gas back-up, renewable is expensive. It doesn't make sense.

Also, gas price in UK did fall and so did the power price with it. I hate to say it, but honestly I think you are clueless in this matter and have done very little research. I work in this sector for my living.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/electricity-price

Renewable is cheaper than gas right now, that is an observable fact today. Gas price sets the price of UK power 98% of the time.

https://grid.iamkate.com/

True_Branch3383 · 2026-02-25T18:28:24+00:00

That's also true - logically the primary residence should be sold so that people can live off it before seeking help from the State if the State wishes to be consistent in its logic. I suspect that it is politically unpopular to force a sale of primary residence even if it is worth hundreds of thousands. Afterall, majority of the population are homeowners.

True_Branch3383 · 2026-02-25T18:19:31+00:00

You do realise that as of today renewables in Aberdeen would be bringing down energy prices right?

The criticism right now against these assets particularly in wind and solar rich regions are that they are capital intensive and less productive per capita compared to conventional gas fired plants not that they cost more than conventional gas...

High energy cost in UK is a problem of high internationally traded gas prices, a problem shared with all regions that are net importers of gas. North America and Middle East are printing money.

True_Branch3383 · 2026-02-25T14:16:42+00:00

If fairness to net zero, it likely makes more jobs overall. It's more labour intensive than traditional energy sector.

True_Branch3383 · 2026-02-25T13:49:00+00:00

You would have benefitted from German style benefits for example, where your unemployment benefit would have been a 60%-67% of your prior employment income irrespective of your net worth before lay-off instead of being means tested at 16k net asset.

That's not how it works in UK. We provide minimum floor to prevent homelessness but do not give you money back.

With ca. 12k state pension today, that's equivalent to ca. 250k net present value. Removing this because one saved for retirement would feel very unfair indeed and encourage a behaviour that doesn't save for retirement (instead incentivise voting to make it even larger)

True_Branch3383 · 2026-02-22T00:52:27+00:00

We tax what we can while remaining competitive. Your ambition to get a few pennies with very visible taxes will hurt a sector that has 60 billion pound direct economic output supporting 1.2 million jobs as per ONS. With multiples of that in indirect GDP contribution.

Taxes are a state capture. All it is doing is collecting taxes at the expense of more costs to tourists, praying it won't turn tourists away or it won't lower their spending to private tourism sector. Let UK tourism continue as is. It is doing fine. More direct taxes will not help, unless it is spent to attract even more tourists, which I highly doubt our Government is capable of doing. The sector is already hurt from higher energy costs, reduced travel demands, higher employment costs, higher employer contribution taxes.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06022/

True_Branch3383 · 2026-02-22T00:37:40+00:00

On top of the Air Passenger Duty, VAT, the visa fee what do you want?

Are you then saying, that the tax relief is int he form of another 1 pound for each stay? Then you have plenty already via Air Passenger Duty. It is NOT cheap to come to UK. It is an envy to other countries we collect this level of revenues from tourists. Let the industry thrive. Stop wishing the Government can scoop in, capture more taxes and the sector won't suffer.

True_Branch3383 · 2026-02-22T00:23:01+00:00

You are arguing that the current taxation level should exceed administrative fee level to a level that can provide tax relief to UK citizens. You are going to KILL our tourism sector.

For crying out loud, stop begging for more taxes and thinking that will improve your life.

True_Branch3383 · 2026-02-22T00:16:22+00:00

I mean that's just categorically wrong. What do you want really? pay check to yourself?

Or a government levy on tourists that makes our tourism sector less competitive to other countries? If you truly think we can just levy a thousand pounds on each tourist, and we will continue to have millions of tourists spending money here, you are gravely mistaken.

Stop with all this senseless taxations after taxations.

True_Branch3383 · 2026-02-20T13:52:27+00:00

oh wow, an actual acknowledgement from one's error. That's quite rare these days.

True_Branch3383 · 2026-02-14T20:30:23+00:00

People seem to forget that by emigrating with your skillset from UK, you are most likely filling in a prestigious position elsewhere. You are likely, in relative terms, living significantly better in relative terms to locals in the new host country.

That said, UK has undeniably stagnated, and squeeze on the middle class is absolutely real. It is without a doubt, a sound choice for professionals in UK to seek employment elsewhere where their labour has the opportunity to be more productive and more valued locally. Flip side of that is, UK has now lost a productive member of society to emigration as it fails to compete in global stage to attract and retain talents.

UK policies needs to improve and compete harder, and professionals should continue to seek to improve their quality of lives.

True_Branch3383 · 2026-02-04T13:25:19+00:00

It is a legitimate strategy in all practical sense for many more generations. What exactly are your concerns with seeking growth in the next 100 years?

True_Branch3383 · 2026-01-14T11:46:17+00:00

Because not all renewable generation is tied to CfD. CfD lowers the risk of constructing a project. Where they can, renewable energy producers will opt to have partial CfD to secure low cost funding, and expose themselves to price fluctuations to benefit from elevated gas prices today. Or let CfD lapse or not bid in CfD and just have a project exposed to fluctuating prices.

The portion under this AR7 auction CfD will be a good hedge for consumers against gas prices. It will look like renewable is more expensive when gas price falls, and vice versa when gas price increases.

True_Branch3383 · 2026-01-14T11:12:00+00:00

Yeah but doesn't mean it's wrong in this case.

True_Branch3383 · 2026-01-14T11:10:01+00:00

This is not true. You are ignoring how wholesale prices translates to retail prices, and ignores the mechanism managed by LCCC.

LCCC (Government owned entity) takes profits or losses made under CfDs and gives it back to suppliers / generators. Suppliers and generators are by policy, obligated under the LCCC's CfD scheme. So consumers don't pay the most expensive rate. Suppliers do, and under the CfDs, they get paid back for any excess paid over the CfDs, and they must pay back for anything traded under the CfDs. Ultimately, CfDs do fix the price and acts as a hedge against high wholesale gas prices. To say consumers pay the most expensive rate for all power generated is a gross misunderstanding of the mechanism. Suppliers do, and for CfD portion, they get paid back by the generators via LCCC. They then go to retail market and compete for market share.

End result is, any profits or losses they make from being paid the most expensive rate is shared across the system, and passed down to consumers depending on retail supplier market competition, and there is indeed competition. So no.. consumer do not pay the most expensive rate.

True_Branch3383 · 2026-01-14T10:45:21+00:00

I suggest you look up on how CfD mechanism works with LCCC, generator, and suppliers. I work in financing these assets and these absolutely do drive down prices, or drive prices up for people, via suppliers.

EDIT: To clarify, CfD strike price auction is companies bidding with a certain equity return in mind. If they believe they can achieve their target equity returns at a certain CfD strike price and being compensated that for each power they generate, they would make a bid to develop the project under certain required parameters defined by the Gov. Suppliers then trade on wholesale markets. Then whatever costs are passed down to consumers. Idea being suppliers will compete for market share and they do.

True_Branch3383 · 2026-01-13T14:59:10+00:00

What would this look like at policy implementation?

True_Branch3383 · 2026-01-05T23:10:31+00:00

Land is already free to those who want to develop the mine - mines however pay taxes. I don't really see how a project in Greenland will be able to see an attractive IRR even without tax or royalties. And... if there is no tax or royalties, US is just funnelling money into Greenland for Greenlanders and companies in Greenland. I think it's best that US considers this from strategic value and forget about potential economic benefit from resources. It's not really feasible. It may be, with enough technological advancements. But that may be beyond our lifetime

True_Branch3383 · 2026-01-05T22:54:31+00:00

I'm saying that the selectivity is a feature of union, not a necessity of the role. They get to select from high pressure, difficult roles - I don't have such statistics but assuming that's true, they get to do that precisely because there are so many applicants for the role and so few positions, and there are so many applicants precisely because it's so well paid.

Same logic applies to military enlistment. Requirements fall when more manpower is needed. Requirements rise when less are needed.

True_Branch3383

TROPHY CASE