Forum menu
Ed Siliband pretending that things are out of his control when it comes the nation’s energy prices. (The government being the effective ‘regulator’ of Ofgem – doh.)
TBF, Ofgem doesn't control the wholesale energy market, which is the biggest component of consumer bills.
TBF, Ofgem doesn’t control the wholesale energy market, which is the biggest component of consumer bills
Out of a £1717 bill approx £1000 are costs associated with running a business that is to be met by the consumer. I'm guessing those numbers would probably be better under state ownership/big investment.
So the W'sale cost is biggest single component but the delivery model is not efficient or the best way of serving public purpose.
Standing back from the regulator and saying our hands are tied we need more reform is not going to lower prices.
(Labour did campaign hard on the price cap issues at one point - up until power.)
I.E they need to do something else which requires more than G.B Energy.
Tories found a short term solution that was better than doing nothing in terms of real bills.
On top of this you take money away from 10million people - (and means testing is inherently more *costly* bureaucratic and divisive than universal payments) then you have Labour government actually making it more expensive.
The point I'm making is there are many mechanisms by which a government can affect final price.
This is not a good winter set up. It's a mess.
Don't know whether to laugh or cry at this. Someone should remind Miliband that he's no longer in opposition. I'm sure labour advisors think they're being very clever by getting all their ministers to bang on about '14 years of tory govt' but it's going to backfire on them massively. They promised 'change', people voted for it, and now they expect it. Instead though all we're getting is a doubling down on all the shite that the tories provided. It's no wonder the media and corporate establishment were so comfortable with the prospect of a Starmer govt.
https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1826867181943947352
I see the love of giving politicians stupid nicknames has returned.
Did it ever go away? Jacob Rees-Mogg, Lee Anderson, Boris Johnson, for example, have all been given stupid nicknames on here. I have always tended to call Boris Johnson Johnson but I am probably an exception.
Nearly £200 of that capped energy bill of 1717 is an external charge for government schemes.
Why?
I would imagine the government could simply pay that itself. And it would not exist at all under state ownership or be nominal.
Let's get this straight - a private company collects a fee for government and the government looks to the private company to be efficient.
It's the worst of both worlds. Another example of finest pragmatism of successive governments.
Remove it. Should be easy for a Labour government.
I see the love of giving politicians stupid nicknames has returned
It's almost as if calling Truss a lettuce/batshit/mad as a box of frogs for days upon end never happened.
I think we're all allowed a bit of tongue-in-cheek humour.
Boris isn't the nickname used on here to describe Johnson
Hmmm... My sister just called (retired, devoted Tory/ possible Reform voter) and was apoplectic about "how the country is now, under Labour".
Amongst all the Reform bingo stuff she is incandescent about:
Winter fuel payments stopping.
She/hubby are now being taxed.
It got a bit heated, I dont talk politics irl unless someone else does first and she did. I wont go into the other stuff but, my God, she idolises Johnson and apparently in the weeks Labour have been in power they have ruined everything...Anyway...
Can anyone fact check me here:
1) They/ she'll still get winter fuel payment as they get Pension Credit, they have no private pension coming in... allegedly...**
1) They are now taxed on their pension (they just had a letter) but isn't that due to falling into a tax band and that was going to happen even if the Tories win as it was their policy?
Cheers.
** I don't agree with this policy in the main, it's a blunt instrument.
If they get taxed on their pension then surely they should not be in receipt of pension credit?.
Tax changes around pensions very likely to be coming, but will likely impact people with sizeable private pensions rather than those on credits.
Thanks guys.
I have the feeling I've not been told everything regarding pensions. I mean, that's fine, it's their business not mine but it obviously contradicts what she is saying.
I really wish she would just not bring politics up. I only really talk about it on here, irl there are better things to chat about! I know where she stands, she knows where I stand. She just can't help herself, it's annoying.
Ah well.
The point I’m making is there are many mechanisms by which a government can affect final price.
Oh sure, I'm not disagreeing. Just pointing out that the wholesale electricity market is an internationally traded commodity. It's in dire need of reform.
For sure Ransos!
So Starmer is reminding everyone how bad everything is and it's going to get worse before it gets better.
That's called inaction.
That's called waiting for growth to appear before you can do anything. That's called targeting the wrong people with your illogical pro-Tory divisive old school benefit removal tactics.
Labour are currently doing nothing that I can see to fix a sodding thing.
It was expected wasn't it? But perhaps most were not expecting it to be quite so appallingly sketchy and ad-hoc.
Genuinely believe they are hoping that the economy just simply delivers something - interest rates will turn in their favour and there will be the odd bit of growth but you need big ideas, you need to steer the ship.
Sentiment is turning very quickly - as I and many others said they don't get that long to make a good start.
There is still acres of time but the Labour party is full of fools so scared of being remotely left-wing or progressive that they don't have the capacity or understanding to push back.
It's all so damn unnecessary.
The argument of getting into power and then turning left was always a figment of the Centrist imagination. But it was a good sell for many.
Reality is Labour are a very weak timid party.
Example 2) Reeves is going around telling everyone there is no money whilst committing to spending money 3bn per year for Ukraine.
Sometimes politicians don't get a choice, which is why loans exist. Small amounts now or the crippling costs of a war in Europe.
Iraq and Afghanistan cost the UK taxpayer £20bn up to 2010, which doesn't take the awful human costs that we're still living with into account
Sometimes politicians don’t get a choice, which is why loans exist. Small amounts now or the crippling costs of a war in Europe
Well it's not the point I'm making.
There is either no money for anything or there is money for the military.
You can't have both.
It's a lie.
Loans - the country doesn't need to borrow what it issues. Just remember the government has its own bank - it doesn't need the private sector for money. And the private sector doesn't create money for the government.
Iraq and Afghanistan cost the UK taxpayer £20bn up to 2010, which doesn’t take the awful human costs that we’re still living with into account
See above.
Tax payers pay for nothing.
No one is arguing you can't have money for things like defence. On the contrary - it's just that there is always money for the military when Reeves is saying there is no money to fix the state infrastructure.
Politicians always have a choice.
Richard Murphy has written on Bylines and his somethingion seems to correlate quite well with what Rone is saying. Article is here
https://eastangliabylines.co.uk/business/economics/rachel-reeves-is-running-a-strange-household/
It's not just me - centre-left supporters such as Professor Danny Blanchflower (ex MPC for the BoE) and previous Starmer endorser are also feeling the frustration.
https://Twitter.com/D_Blanchflower/status/1827688405632761960?t=Pg19pCgp8e_sM5WX0h0xKQ&s=19
He's correct but no idea why he's surprised.
I mean, even James O'Brien was pretty critical of Reeves' fuel payment disaster stroke.
The buyer's remorse is out there.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1828810673398104174
8pts above the old government at rock bottom is pretty awful.
I'm not really impressed with labour so far, despite as a lib dem having gifted them my vote.
They are being really cowardly with making inroads back into the EU, despite the positive meeting with Germany today...it's a step in the right direction so I'll take that, but I think they are still being far too carefull.
They are probably still afraid of the racist backlash, which is a real thing...if it wasnt for UKIP or reform, or whatever they call themselves today, pretty much splitting the racist vote in half (usefull idiots)...labour would not have any sort of comfortable majority, it could have quite easily have been a tory win.
The one thing I am thankfull for is that they are not creating new scandals on a daily basis, which is a nice change from the last government.
The one thing I am thankfull for is that they are not creating new scandals on a daily basis, which is a nice change from the last government.
Give them a chance, they've only been in power 8 weeks!
Well maybe! But they seem a bit more astute than the Conservatives.. Policy issues aside I think they are grown up enough and focused on the job enough for that to not really be an issue.. We will see I guess...
So first they announce higher taxes and more austerity, along with doom-laden messages of everything getting worse, now they're planning to ban smoking in beer gardens. Starmer really is trying to be the most unpopular new prime minister in history isn't he? Funny how they didn't put this one in the manifesto isn't it? Clueless!
Think of the mayhem the last lot managed in any 8 week period. It's so restful now, but then up pops the distraction of beer gardens.
Think of the mayhem the last lot managed in any 8 week period. It’s so restful now, but then up pops the distraction of beer gardens.
It's not about mayhem to be clear on this - it's about utility for people.
That direction couldn't be worse currently.
Elected on change remember.
now they’re planning to ban smoking in beer gardens.
This will tear liberals to shreads. They won't be able to cope.
I genuinely think this government doesn't really have plan - the randomness of ideas on a daily basis.
I can tell you this too - people will have no patience with Labour - hitting the ground with WFA mess has been a PR diaster - tactially a bad move and pragmatically a disaster. (Centrists tell me they will u-turn in the budget. Oh for sure. Reeves' is not in bed with you duck.)
Sensible would have been to hit the ground with something likely to improve things instead of going on about this blasted fictious 'black-hol'e which for all intents and purposes is just from the Tory play-book of clumsy house-hold excuse making for previous goverments. (There's no money left I tell ya.)
What's Starmer scared of ? - he's got a massive majority, and as I've said time and time again he will face criticism no matter what he does, so may as well do the good stuff. This is all just plainly bizarre.
Let's have some good policies please?
Scrap the fiscal rules and start again - part 1.
Sorry a few too rushed typos there. Ugh.
I think you massively underestimate the number of people in this country who never ever go to the pub but still want smoking banned in pub beer gardens, just in case they ever find themselves in one. Maybe when they’ll on holiday, when they’re inevitably ask the bar staff if they can get a pot of tea
Liberty accuses government of ‘disregard for rule of law’ after judges found Braverman’s measures were unlawful
So it turns out that the new Labour Home Secretary now believes that Suella Braverman was correct to appeal against a court's decision that she had acted illegally.
So Suella Braverman is long gone from the Home Office but at least one of her antidemocratic policies lives on, care of Labour.
I am waiting to be told Yvette Cooper has only been Home Secretary for 2 months which is why she hasn't had a chance to take a different position to Suella Braverman's.
Or failing that what a great idea Suella Braverman's policy was after all.
What’s Starmer scared of ? – he’s got a massive majority, and as I’ve said time and time again he will face criticism no matter what he does, so may as well do the good stuff. This is all just plainly bizarre.
Yep, I don't get it either. Making up stuff for why they can't do anything rather than doing stuff. Why doesn't he want to do stuff and why would he want excuses not to do stuff?
And the answer is, he hasn't been in power long enough. Still waiting for those people to tell me when he has been in power long enough.
Let's just get on with it and (re)join the EU.
And the answer is, he hasn’t been in power long enough. Still waiting for those people to tell me when he has been in power long enough
Quite.
But I would answer they've had a long time to know the sinking ship was coming. Where was the preparedness? Where's the trajectory?
I'm not getting good vibes about GBenergy either. The whole programme - pretty quiet.
I'm happy to have the patience. That's not the issue, direction of travel and inertia is.
On another note Thames water will be an interesting one. OFWAT are limiting the bill increase that Thames needs to survive. Based on anything Labour are currently offering that's becoming a real problem.
The reason why Labour are broadly following very similar policies to the Tories is basically exactly the same reason as to why the Tories followed them.
Their goals are broadly the same
What to be kicked out of power?
Besides I would say Labour are heading for a big shock as they're likely to have to deal with way more economic downsides than the Tories.
Also the Tories propped the energy market for a little while. Etc.
Where's those sort of noises?
I think whereas the public give the Tories an easier ride, not so Labour. I think even the most fervent Centrist expected them to be on more solid footing than this
If they screw this term in government up, they’ll not see power again for 20+ year
Devasting that could be a possibility.
Hopefully second half of the term Rach will be ejected back to finance land and something good might eventually happen.
Reeves is more of a problem than Starmer. As I understand it - he knows little about economics and shoved on a course to get up to speed so puts all his faith in Thatcher 2.
Hence back in 2020 Starmer was on video saying government spending is not like a household.
He's simply taking really poor advice this time around.
When GDP doesn't do its thing they will have no choice but to turn the taps on. That is my mine hope. I think it's moderately realistic.
Still waiting for those people to tell me when he has been in power long enough
I've answered this before - obviously just my perspective, though.
6 months - clear direction of travel established if 'operationally' any changes made have yet to have any effect.
12 months - some operational changes made, half of them making a measurable impact on the lives of average Joe and the less fortunate.
I’ve answered this before – obviously just my perspective, though.
Your response is reasonable.
But they've already set a poor trajectory economically. Of their own doing.
By the way the first 100 days is a standard way of measuring the mood music.
That's not the whole picture but it's what's expected.
I’m not getting good vibes about GBenergy either. The whole programme – pretty quiet
Indeed something is off here.
The proposals seem 'vague', then quietness.
The project to develop UK as a nearly energy independent, driven by renewables, with huge storage and better grid is a really admirable aim.
But I am not clear if that is what GBEnergy is about?
And even if it was, how does it play with all the current private companies, set within a global market?
What to be kicked out of power?
No. Presentation is everything. People are prepared to accept the same policies repackaged by Labour.
There are plenty of examples of that.
But I am not clear if that is what GBEnergy is about?
It is going to be another round of corporate subsidies, the benefits will be for the shareholders of the corporations who get the contracts before the public. It's labours norther powerhouse, a bullshit soundbite policy that is designed to pump government/public money into the hands of the already wealthy.
As you've probably guessed I've never been a fan of the concept of GBenergy - it's a private hash-up for branding purposes with nowhere near enough clout to touch the sides but frankly it's all we've got.
For their own sake they made a big deal about it and it should be pushed to the front of the queue rather than all the nonsense they've been spitting out recently.
My feeling its just another case of boxing themselves in on spending commitments.
Sigh.
Honestly just get some investment done FFS. Most economists are on side with this.
The nature of government investment is it generates growth and thus GDP and tax receipts in old school terms.
Do you know they could make the daft black-hole vanish by issuing 22bn in bonds and the BoE could buy them back. It's all double entry accounting and just sheet numbers. It's not even remotely controversial.
Done, no fuss or bother.
No. Presentation is everything. People are prepared to accept the same policies repackaged by Labour.
There are plenty of examples of that.
Until it really really bites.
But then who else is there to vote for?