Tories announce energy price rises for those who shop around to protect big business

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

...Basically the profit made on customers who are too lazy to look for the best deal will be capped....

I sympathise with this point of view. There are many ways to tax people. But given the available choices, a stupidity tax seems one of the preferable options.:)

mrginge wrote: »

I realise it's a bit socialist, but I don't think people should have to spend their time shopping around for fundamentals like energy.

Fifteen minutes once a year? I'd guess that people spend a lot more time shopping around for fundamentals like food. I'd also like to point out that "shopping around" for stuff is the raison d'etre of MSE.

spikyone

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I disagree.

I used to pay a lot less for my phone and fuel than I do now.

But is that anything to do with whether there's competition or not? How much more might you be paying without competition?

I'm with @michaels on this. There are too many tariffs; providers should be limited to no more than two or three each - let's say a fixed rate, a 'tracker', and one other. That would be a far more effective way of managing the market than an artificial cap, and would allow customers to compare far more readily.
I would also - as I have posted before - look at the way that these companies report their accounts. Separating the generation and supply side as they currently do means that they can hide their profits and claim they're only making 4%, when in reality the enormous markup (and true profit) comes from the internal sale of the generated power to the supply side. The same changes in accounting practice could also stop multinationals using cross-border loans from different parts of the same parent company to create fictitious losses (Amazon, Starbucks, et al).

Back on topic, at least a cap is better than Miliband's deeply flawed idea of a freeze.

kabayiri

Privatization / Public (re) ownership.

Heineken, Shmineken....it makes little difference.

As the growing parts of the world develop they will demand a greater share of a (currently) finite energy resource.

The pattern is clear. We will be paying a lot more for energy in the future. How many tens of billions will we have to throw at the future nuclear program, or the much needed upgrade of the power grid. The bill will fall on customers.

The focus for helping customers should be cheap first class advice on energy reduction in our homes and offices.

How many here have a thermal profile of their house, showing where the major heat loss sources are?

System

Oh, I like this.

I can't stand all this cocking about, just charge me what's fair to start with.

mrginge

michaels wrote: »

If you want to see how well it works when the state fixes prices I suggest you emigrate to Venezuela....

Ooh someone's a big old cross patch aren't they.

ruperts

What I don't understand is where the regulator is in all of this. The first bullet point on Ofgem's 'what we do' website section says "promote value for money" and for me not just promoting but actively creating a regulatory environment that ensures value for money is their primary reason for existence. If the government is having to step in to put in place hard price caps isn't that a strong indication that Ofgem are failing and if so where is their accountability? Why aren't we seeing Ofgem being reformed?

michaels

ruperts wrote: »

What I don't understand is where the regulator is in all of this. The first bullet point on Ofgem's 'what we do' website section says "promote value for money" and for me not just promoting but actively creating a regulatory environment that ensures value for money is their primary reason for existence. If the government is having to step in to put in place hard price caps isn't that a strong indication that Ofgem are failing and if so where is their accountability? Why aren't we seeing Ofgem being reformed?

The regulator investigated the market and decided that price caps were not in the consumer interest. It takes an economically illiterate politician in the back pocket of the big business incumbents with an election in the offing to propose something this stupid.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I don't like paying anything by Direct Debit, so the cheapest deals aren't an option for me. That is my active choice though.

I do wonder how much competition there really can be between energy providers. They are all pretty much flogging the same product, from the same sources, via the same infrastructure. Not really comparable to phone services, which are optional for a start.

mrginge

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I don't like paying anything by Direct Debit, so the cheapest deals aren't an option for me. That is my active choice though.

I do wonder how much competition there really can be between energy providers. They are all pretty much flogging the same product, from the same sources, via the same infrastructure. Not really comparable to phone services, which are optional for a start.

Cllearly you are a communist.

The fact that I own an iPhone and have the opportunity to choose Heinz beans or Lidl beans means that only a fully market driven, unregulated capitalist model is appropriate for all business sectors.

mailmannz

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I don't like paying anything by Direct Debit, so the cheapest deals aren't an option for me. That is my active choice though.

I do wonder how much competition there really can be between energy providers. They are all pretty much flogging the same product, from the same sources, via the same infrastructure. Not really comparable to phone services, which are optional for a start.

Not only that but they are all forced to deliver products that includes !!!!!!!! like energy derived from windmills, ground unicorn horn and mirrors!!


Mailman