And now the forecasters are saying the price cap could hit £6000

Woolsery

Funkydrummer44 said:

It shouldn't be up to the British public to pay for the war in Ukraine.  This is the role of the government who need to step up and do something to reduce anxiety instead of letting the people suffer.

The government apparently don't mind higher levels of  public anxiety; they set about increasing it in 2020. Later, some of the psychologists whose skills they used apologised for the heavy-handedness, though whether they meant it or just thought they might be in trouble is hard to say.

The Ukraine war is only part of the problem, however. We moved too quickly towards the net zero target without considering basic home security of fuel and food in a variety of potential scenarios. Sri Lanka is a good example of where going too far and fast get you.

pochase

aoleks said:

pochase said:

Is the £64 a direct debit, or is it the bill?

If it is a summer month bill the average use will be most likely more £120. 

This £120 will go up by over 80% in October, now we are at £216 average. In January Auxilione predicts another 40% raise, so the £216 become £302, or over £3600 per year. That is low usage, but now that far of the £5000 as you believe. Just £120 difference per month.

What is your annual energy use in KWh for gas and electrcity?

that's the bill, we always provide a reading on the last day of the month and so the bill is always reflective of what we use.

electricity between December last year and August is around 1600KWh. gas for the same period is around 8800KWh.

we usually ask for quotes on 9000kwh gas and 4000kwh elec per year. but this is a lot, like I said, heating is literally on non-stop for 5 months a year.

Here is the forecast for October and January.

So you are at £239, with a few months of electricity and gas missing in January when the £5000 is predicted. Very likely that you will be near the £300 in average per month I suggested above.

That said you are a low user, using less than the average, but you are still nearer to the £5000 than you might have thought.

If you are using heating for 5 months non stop you must have an extremely well insulated property, something not everybody has, and many will use much more gas, for less heating time.

Funkydrummer44

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Funkydrummer44 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Funkydrummer44 said:

It shouldn't be up to the British public to pay for the war in Ukraine.  This is the role of the government who need to step up and do something to reduce anxiety instead of letting the people suffer.

Ah, so your support for a beleaguered nation under attack from a malevolent superpower ends the moment your energy bills become difficult to afford.  I see.  What do you propose?  Just leave Ukraine to it and get back to buying Russian gas?

Who do you think should "pay for the war"?  Our government doesn't have its own money - it spends ours.  What do you think they should be doing to reduce anxiety, in the face of a global energy price rise?

I didn't see bills rise when the government threw billions at covid and furlough, did you?

Where do you think those billions came from?

you tell me?

pochase

Funkydrummer44 said:

Funkydrummer44 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Funkydrummer44 said:

It shouldn't be up to the British public to pay for the war in Ukraine.  This is the role of the government who need to step up and do something to reduce anxiety instead of letting the people suffer.

Ah, so your support for a beleaguered nation under attack from a malevolent superpower ends the moment your energy bills become difficult to afford.  I see.  What do you propose?  Just leave Ukraine to it and get back to buying Russian gas?

Who do you think should "pay for the war"?  Our government doesn't have its own money - it spends ours.  What do you think they should be doing to reduce anxiety, in the face of a global energy price rise?

I didn't see bills rise when the government threw billions at covid and furlough, did you?

And btw, Europe is still buying Russian gas at least as much as Russia allows.  There are plenty of people and companies making an absolute killing due to the war.  The oil and gas companies for one and the government (due to the tax on higher oil and gas prices) for another.  

For example Juniper in Germany with a loss of 12billion Euro  this year, and making losses of 50 to 100 million Euro per week at the moment? Their contracts are with Russia, and they now have to buy on the market at much higher prices, and are still supplying suppliers in Germany at the agreed rates.

That is really a killing. It would have killed the company without support. 

Woolsery

Funkydrummer44 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Funkydrummer44 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Funkydrummer44 said:

It shouldn't be up to the British public to pay for the war in Ukraine.  This is the role of the government who need to step up and do something to reduce anxiety instead of letting the people suffer.

Ah, so your support for a beleaguered nation under attack from a malevolent superpower ends the moment your energy bills become difficult to afford.  I see.  What do you propose?  Just leave Ukraine to it and get back to buying Russian gas?

Who do you think should "pay for the war"?  Our government doesn't have its own money - it spends ours.  What do you think they should be doing to reduce anxiety, in the face of a global energy price rise?

I didn't see bills rise when the government threw billions at covid and furlough, did you?

Where do you think those billions came from?

you tell me?

Helicopter money created from thin air, but that comes back to bite everyone later as inflation, because it wasn't earned by gainful economic activity. There's no free lunch.

Section62

Funkydrummer44 said:

It shouldn't be up to the British public to pay for the war in Ukraine.  This is the role of the government who need to step up and do something to reduce anxiety instead of letting the people suffer.

The way I see it the British government have 'stepped up' and by supporting Ukraine (with financial sanctions and supplies of arms) are helping to reduce anxiety and suffering of the people in Ukraine.

And here in the UK too, because if countries like the UK didn't do all they can to support Ukraine it would only be a matter of time before the Russian tanks carried on into Poland and further.  I guess when they reached Calais you might finally agree that the British public needed to pay something to stop the Russian aggression?

Aylesbury_Duck

Funkydrummer44 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Funkydrummer44 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Funkydrummer44 said:

It shouldn't be up to the British public to pay for the war in Ukraine.  This is the role of the government who need to step up and do something to reduce anxiety instead of letting the people suffer.

Ah, so your support for a beleaguered nation under attack from a malevolent superpower ends the moment your energy bills become difficult to afford.  I see.  What do you propose?  Just leave Ukraine to it and get back to buying Russian gas?

Who do you think should "pay for the war"?  Our government doesn't have its own money - it spends ours.  What do you think they should be doing to reduce anxiety, in the face of a global energy price rise?

I didn't see bills rise when the government threw billions at covid and furlough, did you?

Where do you think those billions came from?

you tell me?

No, it doesn't work like that.  You began by suggesting the government should "step up and do something to reduce anxiety" and that the British public shouldn't pay for the war in Ukraine.  I challenged that and asked what you would propose and who ought to be paying for the war.  Instead of answering, you threw in some whataboutery around the pandemic, and now you expect me to provide the economic answer you haven't formulated yourself, nor have provided for your own suggestion.

Nice try, but it didn't work.  So, going back to your original post, what exactly do you suggest the government ought to be doing to reduce anxiety and suffering around energy costs, and who should pay for it?

QrizB

Aylesbury_Duck said:

... and who should pay for it?

Is the answer "Mexico"?

deano2099

Woolsery said:

Helicopter money created from thin air, but that comes back to bite everyone later as inflation, because it wasn't earned by gainful economic activity. There's no free lunch.

That's true, but it has to be balanced against the option of "doing nothing". With something like COVID, or this energy crisis, "doing nothing" does not allow you to keep the economy in a steady state by default. Those crisis events are acting on the economy in their own way. Without the COVID support we would have had huge numbers of companies closing down, massive redundancies, leading to both those companies and their employees stopping paying tax, people defaulting on mortgages and other debts, and a massive strain on the existing welfare system. It's certainly possible that it would have cost us more, even in the short term, and would have had similar long term impacts.

This is the same sort of thing. It's not quite so stark, as the consequences aren't quite so obvious, but similar principles apply. The money spent on something like this *will* get paid back through taxation as in theory it allows people to keep consuming, keep actively pumping money into the economy, and keeps everything going. If we all "tighten our belts" for six months then what happens to all those businesses that provide the services we decide we can no longer afford? Individually it's a small impact, but done en-masse it'll have major impacts.

Again, you're right there's no such thing as a free lunch, but if everyone stops buying lunch for six months the café won't be there for long. There's a balance to be found somewhere. I don't think we're hitting it right now (the cost of living help should be much more targeted), but the notion that if we all just suffer for a bit it'll be fine is false.

(The one way it would work, is if the belt-tightening everyone did was purely related to energy consumption- but that's not the reality, as even with price rises, energy consuming activities remain among the cheaper recreational options)

Astria

Funkydrummer44 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Funkydrummer44 said:

It shouldn't be up to the British public to pay for the war in Ukraine.  This is the role of the government who need to step up and do something to reduce anxiety instead of letting the people suffer.

Ah, so your support for a beleaguered nation under attack from a malevolent superpower ends the moment your energy bills become difficult to afford.  I see.  What do you propose?  Just leave Ukraine to it and get back to buying Russian gas?

Who do you think should "pay for the war"?  Our government doesn't have its own money - it spends ours.  What do you think they should be doing to reduce anxiety, in the face of a global energy price rise?

I didn't see bills rise when the government threw billions at covid and furlough, did you?

Yes, fuel went up, apparently due to other factors, but the government raked in more money from it. Cost of living has gone up, apparently again due to other factors, but they've profited from that as well, and energy costs have gone up, again of which they take a percentage. Strange that after handing out billions of pounds that everything increases in price and the gov't are able to get more money in isn't it? So they've not increased taxes, which would be bad considering voting is around the corner, but all other prices have increased that they take a cut from, coincidence ?