Ed Milliband... what he can & cant do.

worried_jim

mailmannz wrote: »

The first thing Ed the Clown needs to do is to apologise to this country for The Climate Change Bill that has lead directly to where we are today with energy!

Anyone who votes for this moron needs their heads examined!

Mailman

And now he is responsible for energy companies whacking up their prices in case he gets in and freezes them for two years, cheers w*nker!

DragonQ

tberry6686 wrote: »

If you want to use that as a measure of cost then why stop at energy costs. Our supermarkets must also be the most expensive and phones and anything else you care to mention. So why single out energy ?

You are correct, it's the most sensible comparison method for all commodities if we're talking about affordability rather than simple cost. If you lived in a country where bananas were 1p instead of 10p, that'd be great...unless you earned £1000/year instead of £20000/year. Percentages keeps things in perspective.

An interesting example is petrol being about half the price in the US compared to here, but their cars are about half as efficient on average, meaning total expenditure is about the same. However, they have more disposable income than us so their fuel costs are lower as a percentage of outlay.

Biggles

MillicentBystander wrote: »

Debunked by me here.

No, you just quoted some figures from a UK campaigning group who use a concocted statistic, 'fuel poverty', to make their case. This statistic isn't even used in most European countries and independent bodies such as the EU Fuel Poverty Network show figures that put the UK with amongst the lowest figures for fuel poverty, not the second highest.

MillicentBystander

tberry6686 wrote: »

If you want to use that as a measure of cost then why stop at energy costs. Our supermarkets must also be the most expensive and phones and anything else you care to mention. So why single out energy ?

In other words, you have no answer to my response. It was YOU who brought up the usual nonsense peddled by energy industry shills, not I. Feel free to have another go at a proper response.

MillicentBystander

worried_jim wrote: »

And now he is responsible for energy companies whacking up their prices in case he gets in and freezes them for two years, cheers w*nker!

Yes, because this is the first annual rise the Big 6 have announced for years, isn't it? Think before posting.

MillicentBystander

Biggles wrote: »

No, you just quoted some figures from a UK campaigning group who use a concocted statistic, 'fuel poverty', to make their case. This statistic isn't even used in most European countries and independent bodies such as the EU Fuel Poverty Network show figures that put the UK with amongst the lowest figures for fuel poverty, not the second highest.

Yet you are nailing your colours to the mast of a calculation that involves the vagaries of currency fluctuations and takes no account of ability to pay.

Question: Should the pound or euro plummet overnight compared to each other, what would this league table look like tomorrow?

Biggles

MillicentBystander wrote: »

Yet you are nailing your colours to the mast of a calculation that involves the vagaries of currency fluctuations and takes no account of ability to pay.

No, I'm only pointing out that you have chosen a deliberately misleading 'statistic'.

cells

He should put the minimum wage to £10ph before his first term is up

So perhaps

2016 £7ph
2017 £8ph
2018 £9ph
2019 £10ph

That might sound quite high a figure but the 2019 median wage will be close to £15ph so a £10ph min wage just insures that the lowest paid get two thirds the median wage. Also with inflation even if nothing is dine about the minium wage by 2019 it would be in the 7.50-8.00 range

That would ensure him a big majority
I've not once voted labour but I would if they increased the minimum wage by a reasonable amount

I believe most the cost of this to employers would be offset by higher sales and income from 5 million or so people who can then affird a little more than bread and baked beans

cells

The cheapest option is to do nothing
Keep our existing coal and gas stations and extend existing nuke lives and stop building wind and solar mills

This is an option not really debated but it is on so many ways the best option

If you want shiny new wind panels solar farms and reactors prices will enivitably have to rise.


There is one simple thing you can do to 'insulate' yourself from most the price increases and that is to simply use less.

This can most easily be achieved by the old school method of heating only one room of the house. If you spend most the day in the living room only heat that rather than the whole house and you will see about 80% less gas use than heating the whole house.

worried_jim

MillicentBystander wrote: »

Yes, because this is the first annual rise the Big 6 have announced for years, isn't it? Think before posting.

But without tosspot pink Ed it wouldn't have been 9-11% would it? Put your brain in gear next time:p.