Opposition proposals to freeze the price cap - fair for people who have fixed?

Mstty

It was clear a lot of people felt pressured here on the board to sign up to early fixes before the dreaded price increase in October even if they couldn't afford it as they certainly couldn't afford prices come October and beyond.

The energy suppliers created their own hype removing products quickly then replacing them with products with increased prices.

Now the energy suppliers are pushing this £1971 cap and this could harm the people that fixed early.

Just out for themselves

pochase

What does the fact if somebody took a fix have to do with the fact if you get the £400?

I did not know that you can only get fixed rates if you can afford the energy rates and don't need the £400.

I think most who signed up for a fixed tariff were aware that it was a gamble, the problem is just that here is suggested for the rules to be changed. Positive for us on a fixed tariff is that it is unlikely that this proposal won't be taken up by the government.

They won't give Labour the benefit that they developed this solution. and the complete financing between the proposal is not working.

savers_united

pochase said:

What does the fact if somebody took a fix have to do with the fact if you get the £400?

I did not know that you can only get fixed rates if you can afford the energy rates and don't need the £400.

I think most who signed up for a fixed tariff were aware that it was a gamble, the problem is just that here is suggested for the rules to be changed. Positive for us on a fixed tariff is that it is unlikely that this proposal won't be taken up by the government.

They won't give Labour the benefit that they developed this solution. and the complete financing between the proposal is not working.

The idea behind the £400 and possibly more to come is the October cap predicted to be £2800, that was revised to £3200 and then £3600, some would have fixed at well below these figures and still get the £400 (well done good on them), but now there is talk of a possible freezing of the cap many are asking if they will somehow be compensated for the decision they took to fix. Like I say provided they have the option to switch back to the SVT if that's what they choose then don't see the issue, but trying to get exit fees paid or any excess amounts they feel they have paid between taking the fix and October freeze is a bit of a stretch.

The SVT is subject to change, Ofgem have made that clear with changes made to date as the situation evolves. 

pochase

I am going to go with the fact that it is extremely unlikely that the future PM is going to buy into a suggestion by the opposition and will enjoy my fixed tariff.

Worst case will be that I will start saving in April.

spot1034

pochase said:

I am going to go with the fact that it is extremely unlikely that the future PM is going to buy into a suggestion by the opposition and will enjoy my fixed tariff.

Worst case will be that I will start saving in April.

Indeed, it's all very well to point to how many times this government has caved in to pressure on almost every issue, but the two candidates for PM will be aware of that and wanting to make a fresh start. Truss in particular seems to want to govern as a Conservative, which puts her some distance away from her predecessor. She will not want her first act as Prime Minister to be the adoption of a policy suggested by the leader of the opposition.  

The_Green_Hornet

pochase said:

I am going to go with the fact that it is extremely unlikely that the future PM is going to buy into a suggestion by the opposition and will enjoy my fixed tariff.

Worst case will be that I will start saving in April.

I agree and the opposition proposal isn't gaining that much traction in the media especially since economists have questioned the fag packet calculations used to claim that it is fully costed.

MattMattMattUK

spot1034 said:

pochase said:

I am going to go with the fact that it is extremely unlikely that the future PM is going to buy into a suggestion by the opposition and will enjoy my fixed tariff.

Worst case will be that I will start saving in April.

Indeed, it's all very well to point to how many times this government has caved in to pressure on almost every issue, but the two candidates for PM will be aware of that and wanting to make a fresh start. Truss in particular seems to want to govern as a Conservative, which puts her some distance away from her predecessor. She will not want her first act as Prime Minister to be the adoption of a policy suggested by the leader of the opposition.  

Truss is nowhere near a small or big C Conservative, at best she is an unprincipled right-wing populist with a lust for power who is economically and socially illiterate. I suspect will her installation will mean that for the third time in a row we get the worst PM we have ever had and Johnson was by far the worst by some margin compared to his predecessors.

I do agree that there is no way she will adopt anything Labour proposes though. 

wittynamegoeshere

Labour have never understood the concept of unintended consequences and just promise the earth as they know that they're not in power so can get the feelgood factor without having to deal with the consequences.

QrizB

MattMattMattUK said:

Dolor said:

Write to your MP.

My MP is Steve Baker, a hardcore Brexiteer, climate change denier, who spent two years trying to get the UK to reinstate the Gold Standard. The only time he appears in his constituency is for a photo opportunity before quickly fleeing for somewhere else again.

Comiserations.

Mine is Kit Malthouse, named for a flat-packed garden building and I think the building would make a better MP.

(He was a mate of the PM's when BJ was London mayor, and got parachuted into a safe seat when the incumbent retired.)

MattMattMattUK said:

jimexbox said:

You could easily negate this for high earners, so the impact is more equitable and affordable. I don't pretend to have every answer, it's easy to implement and will be beneficial for the low paid. 

High earners already make a large contribution, so net they will still be paying in a lot. The issue arises when the cost of targeting exceeds the utility of the money saved and the administration needed to cover exceptions.

Personally, I'd deal with this by knocking £2k off the higher-rate tax band. Those earning over ~£48k would end up paying an extra £400 in tax, offsetting the universal £400 electricity subsidy.

That would probably hit Conservative voters harder than others, though.

The_Green_Hornet

MattMattMattUK said:

spot1034 said:

pochase said:

I am going to go with the fact that it is extremely unlikely that the future PM is going to buy into a suggestion by the opposition and will enjoy my fixed tariff.

Worst case will be that I will start saving in April.

Indeed, it's all very well to point to how many times this government has caved in to pressure on almost every issue, but the two candidates for PM will be aware of that and wanting to make a fresh start. Truss in particular seems to want to govern as a Conservative, which puts her some distance away from her predecessor. She will not want her first act as Prime Minister to be the adoption of a policy suggested by the leader of the opposition.  

Truss is nowhere near a small or big C Conservative, at best she is an unprincipled right-wing populist with a lust for power who is economically and socially illiterate. I suspect will her installation will mean that for the third time in a row we get the worst PM we have ever had and Johnson was by far the worst by some margin compared to his predecessors.

I do agree that there is no way she will adopt anything Labour proposes though. 

The reason why, for the third time in a row, you got the worst PM you ever had is because for the third time in a row you have had the worst opposition leader you have ever had.

Sadly UK politics is on a downward spiral.