Gov't support

chris_n

If the first X number of kWh was reduced in price the poorer, low users would not be hit as hard. The people who are then high users have the incentive to reduce usage as the extra kWh's are more expensive. There would obviously be a need for people with medical needs etc to be excluded from the higher pricing. It would need a lot of overseeing but would achieve reduced demand and targeting the most needy.

Astria

chris_n said:

If the first X number of kWh was reduced in price the poorer, low users would not be hit as hard. The people who are then high users have the incentive to reduce usage as the extra kWh's are more expensive. There would obviously be a need for people with medical needs etc to be excluded from the higher pricing. It would need a lot of overseeing but would achieve reduced demand and targeting the most needy.

But it would make it more difficult to compare tariffs, which is why the standing charge was separated rather than included in the X amount of kWh hours it was usually. You could actually have a zero or very low standing charge by using very few kWh.

deano2099

The problem is that "stay at home and watch Netflix / play PlayStation" has long been the *how* you save money if you're not well off. Poorer people are no longer going out mcuh for meals and drinks, which means they're in more, which means they are using more power. And especially over winter they'll need heating at that point too. 

And while the cost of staying in is going to go up, it's still going to be cheaper than going out. It'll still be cheaper to heat the house for an evening and fire up the PS5 than it will be to go to the pub or to a gig or a restaurant. 

Yes, there's certainly room for educating people to be a bit smarter on their energy usage where it's being used unnecessarily, but the idea that poorer people will cut out TV watching or gaming is for the birds. They're not going to go back to reading books. What will happen is that instead of going out one night a week, they'll go out once a month. And that's how they will fund the increased cost of energy. 

Sea_Shell

"They're not going to go back to reading books."

Well, that's a shame.   

Maybe people will reconnect with old fashioned pass times.

Borrow a draughts (or chess if they prefer a challenge!) set.  Play cards.  Jigsaw puzzles etc etc.

Not everything has to be electronic.

chris_n

Astria said:

chris_n said:

If the first X number of kWh was reduced in price the poorer, low users would not be hit as hard. The people who are then high users have the incentive to reduce usage as the extra kWh's are more expensive. There would obviously be a need for people with medical needs etc to be excluded from the higher pricing. It would need a lot of overseeing but would achieve reduced demand and targeting the most needy.

But it would make it more difficult to compare tariffs, which is why the standing charge was separated rather than included in the X amount of kWh hours it was usually. You could actually have a zero or very low standing charge by using very few kWh.

I'm not suggesting removing the standing charge at all, I'm suggesting a government mandated price cap that includes the first X kWh at maybe todays rates and the rest charged at the new rate or thereabouts. 

deano2099

Sea_Shell said:

"They're not going to go back to reading books."

Well, that's a shame.   

Maybe people will reconnect with old fashioned pass times.

Borrow a draughts (or chess if they prefer a challenge!) set.  Play cards.  Jigsaw puzzles etc etc.

Not everything has to be electronic.

No, but they'll still need heat. And the reality is the cost per hour of a jigsaw puzzle is higher than most video games and certainly something like Netflix. 
I'm sitting in a room surrounded by 300 board games but I don't think people are going to go back to chess/draughts instead of TV just so they can have an extra night out. They'll forgo the night out. 

Spoonie_Turtle

deano2099 said:

Yes, there's certainly room for educating people to be a bit smarter on their energy usage where it's being used unnecessarily, but the idea that poorer people will cut out TV watching or gaming is for the birds. They're not going to go back to reading books. What will happen is that instead of going out one night a week, they'll go out once a month. And that's how they will fund the increased cost of energy. 

Or they'll continue not going out at night at all, like many families already.  The ones already struggling certainly won't be having nights out.

[A takeaway is cheaper than going out to eat, which we used to have once a month, then as the prices rise, once every two months … now it's more like every 3 or 4 months, if that.  We're fortunate that for us it was that we just can't countenance spending that much money on one meal (we can afford it if we really want, but old mindsets die hard), but for many it's not a choice.  And when you've already cut back, there's less room to make further savings.]

Edit: lest that ^ come across churlish at all (it's not intended to be) I do agree that cutting down on nights out is a good method that no doubt people who were modestly comfortable but now feeling the squeeze will be using.

CKhalvashi

QrizB said:

I'd like to see continued targeted support at lower-income households, with income & corporation tax increases to fund it.

If/when energy prices get back to something resembling normal, the changes can be unwound.

I disagree. You're going to push high earners out of the UK and cause businesses (like mine, we are international by nature) to invest less in the UK. This country needs to remain competitive in an already difficult international market, especially with the current government instability.

I would like to see continued targeted support at lower income households with a condition that this is paid back over x years once things stabilise. I'd also like to see the 45% tax bracket being reduced to £100k as a temporary measure meaning the £320k who can afford it paying an extra £2500 in tax a year and affecting (although a much older number) about the top 2%.

elsien

I’d like more focus on the steps people can take to try to mitigate things rather than the “we’re all doomed” headlines. 

I know there are people who just aren’t going to find this affordable. And those with disabilities who do have higher costs . 

But there’s also people like my 83 year old mother talking about not putting the heating on. But she has a pension on top of the state pension - not a huge one but she’s not on the breadline. However the headlines and the figures have got her panicked much more than she needs to be. I’m sure there will be others who will cope if they’re careful, but are going to the far extreme and putting themselves at risk unnecessarily. 

Alnat1

There needs to be a lot more information about steps people can take to run their homes more efficiently. 

The younger generation can find solutions online but for a large majority of older people, their information comes mainly from the TV and all they see are the scary headlines.

If The One Show was replaced for a few days in September with Energy Specials that showed how best to set up heating systems and gave simple tips on cutting energy use etc. it would really help those who are worrying how they are going to cope.