Do we trust the government to maintain the Energy Price Guarantee?

macman

wittynamegoeshere said:

tifo said:

daveyjp said:

Lizz Truss has said more than once today that no one will pay more than £2,500 for energy from Saturday.

It's an average £2,500. Mine is about £3,300 per year combined .....

The point above is that you know that, we do too.  But we're posting on MSE.

The PM has told the great british public that they won't pay more than £2500.  Heating on, windows open everybody, if you can afford £200-odd per month then nothing to worry about apparently, according to her at the top.

This is more embarassing than when Boris was in charge, and I didn't think that was possible.  And I voted for him, I'm not some anti-tory leftie.  Thankfully I didn't vote for what we're now lumbered with.

You did though. You voted for a Conservative gov't in 2019, of which Truss and Kwarteng is just the latest incarnation. You can't hide behind this 'new administration' defence, any more than Truss can. She's sat in cabinet since 2012.

Miser1964

The other politician playing fast and loose with truth is Beer Starmer, touting a publicly owned power company if Labour get into power.

Unless he's got a magic source of natural gas, any organisation will need to purchase gas on the open market so public ownership won't make any different to the kWh unit prices. That said, the usual public sector inefficiency will likely make prices go up! 

Getting_greyer

Miser1964 said:

The other politician playing fast and loose with truth is Beer Starmer, touting a publicly owned power company if Labour get into power.

Unless he's got a magic source of natural gas, any organisation will need to purchase gas on the open market so public ownership won't make any different to the kWh unit prices. That said, the usual public sector inefficiency will likely make prices go up! 

Im sketchy on the idea but I believe that the GB energy would also be a generator as well as retail, with energy sourced by renewable/nuclear.  It could therefore decide to price it's energy lower.  

Obvious Q is would this bring down global price ? (No) what happens when everyone switches and GB can't provide (fold?)

But thinks it's at idea stage anyway.

Ryan_Holden

Miser1964 said:

The other politician playing fast and loose with truth is Beer Starmer, touting a publicly owned power company if Labour get into power.

Unless he's got a magic source of natural gas, any organisation will need to purchase gas on the open market so public ownership won't make any different to the kWh unit prices. That said, the usual public sector inefficiency will likely make prices go up! 

This is a really silly comment and I suspect calling him "Beer Starmer" tells me that you won't be interested in an objective reply.

He hasn't said that the proposed Great British Energy will replace the need for gas. He has said GBE will be a company to build up our renewable ownership. 

casjen

Anybody who bases life decisions on headlines deserves all they get... old/infirm exceptions of course.

basketcase

Miser1964 said:

Getting_greyer said:

Why U-turn the EPG when you can simply find more efficiency savings in an emaciated public sector.  

Why act when you blame LOTO, EU, Russia, Biden, the self employed, employers, Corbyn, IMF, WTO, unions, teachers, bankers, students, refugees, working people, media, Marcus Rashford, progressives, the centre-right, momentum, disabled people, poor people, wealthy people, pensioners, banks, stock markets, day traders, channel 4, remainers, the red wall, employers, Muslims, the Archbishop of Canterbury, wokery, police, gangs, the green belt, courts and many, many more? 

And if you're the SNP, add 'the English' to deflect blame for your own incompetence and corruption. 

Not the English, Westminster - although Wales and Scotland haven't voted Tory for years (Scotland since 1955) and N Ireland no longer has a right wing majority.  More likely to blame FPTP elections, since most English who voted didn't seem to elect them either.  And nobody elected the last 3 PMs at all.

Incompetence?  Nobody's perfect, but it's hard to be competent when you don't have control of, for starters when you don't control the policies governing: the energy you produce, transport, borders almost all aspects of taxation and the media  Also when somebody else holds the purse-strings so you're only getting money for health, social etc based on what UK Govt is prepared to spend and said people won't 'allow' you to borrow.

Corruption.  Could you quote some sources please?  Because, if they are I'd honestly like to know.

To get back on topic and answer the question, going on previous performance, no.

ETA: I'm English myself and not a member of "that Essempee"  Apologies if this sounds political - it's not meant to be just a balance answer to Miser's comment.

[Deleted User]

wittynamegoeshere said:

Miser1964 said:

Unless he's got a magic source of natural gas, any organisation will need to purchase gas on the open market so public ownership won't make any different to the kWh unit prices. That said, the usual public sector inefficiency will likely make prices go up!

We're currently buying gas from UK companies at world market prices.

We're also paying all other electricity generating companies a price that's based on world gas market prices.

All of the above is resulting in a massive windfall for the private generating companies that are operating in the UK, at the expense of every member of the public.  Truss worked for Shell, and her leadership campaign was part-funded by BP.  Whose side is she really on?

I'm no red commie, but it seems obvious that the thing some call a "market" is rigged, is operating against the public interest and there are huge savings to be made by nationalising.

The private sector is very good at being efficient where there's natural competition, e.g. a supermarket.  But where there's an outright monopoly or artificially simulated competition then prices just rise unimpeded.  This isn't about red vs blue, it's just horses for courses.

Isn't about red v blue, but you are insinuating quite strongly corruption on one side?

[Deleted User]

wittynamegoeshere said:

[Deleted User] said:

Isn't about red v blue, but you are insinuating quite strongly corruption on one side?

Influence.  Lobbying.  Vested Interests.  There are lots of words that can describe this sort of activity.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then don't neglect the possibility that it may just be a duck.

A different opinion of what might work that you don't agree with.  A naive misunderstanding by listening to the wrong advisors.  The result of a different dataset on which decisions are being made.

Just because you see it on water doesn't make it a duck.

Chrysalis

Miser1964 said:

The other politician playing fast and loose with truth is Beer Starmer, touting a publicly owned power company if Labour get into power.

Unless he's got a magic source of natural gas, any organisation will need to purchase gas on the open market so public ownership won't make any different to the kWh unit prices. That said, the usual public sector inefficiency will likely make prices go up! 

I suggest you read his proposal, its renewables not fossil fuels.

The plan is to invest in Wind Farms and Nuclear.

[Deleted User]

wittynamegoeshere said:

Awwww bless your innocence.

Do you never wonder why former PMs seem to immediately get vastly well paid jobs that don't seem to involve actually doing any work, knowing anything about what they do or even turning up?

E.g...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair

In January 2008, it was confirmed that Blair would be joining investment bank JPMorgan Chase in a "senior advisory capacity"[194] and that he would advise Zurich Financial Services on climate change. His salary for this work is unknown, although it has been claimed it may be in excess of £500,000 per year.

Blair's links with, and receipt of an undisclosed sum from, UI Energy Corporation, have also been subject to media comment in the UK.

This is just the reality of politics.  I wish they were all there out of a sense of duty and to make the country a better place, but the reality is all too obvious, they barely even attempt to conceal it.

I didn't say I personally thought it one way or the other.  Just providing balance to your accusations.  People can make up their own mind.

Politicians make money after leaving politics through associations with corporations?  Yes, obviously, what should they do just retire to a monastery in silence?

Politicians get lobbied whilst they are in parliament by people willing to spend money to influence decision making?  Yes, well documented that they do, sometimes more legitimately than others.

It therefore follows that all politicians are solely operating at the behest of a shadowy paymaster that determines what policies and decision should be made?  No, that's straying into conspiracy theory territory.

It is possible that each decision made by a politician was entirely because it is what they think was right.  It is possible that each decision made by a politician was entirely because it is what they think will be popular (either wholly or in a certain demographic).  It is more likely that these are only two of many reasons.