Energy Price Guarantee No Longer 2 years just 6 months at current level

Yawn

Mstty said:

Yawn said:

Had a fix just above the original October price cap, which I cancelled after the original price cap announcement so I didn't have to overpay for two weeks. What fool I was. I may well be paying much more for six months now. 🙃

Not a fool just overly reactive given those two weeks won't have been expensive energy weeks at that time of the year so the overpay would have been minimal.

The energy market was already confusing to most, add in the EPG, the appearance of a two year guarantee and the utterly rubbish government information on the EPG at the time and I suspect a lot are in the same boat.

Thank you for the sympathy. I wouldn't have done it even if it wasn't really easy on the Sainsbury Energy website! Wish I could U turn as easily as the government...

littleteapot

My cynical nature has saved me from one government shafting at least this year. Staying on an April 2024 fix even though the E7 night rate tempted me to move to the EPG was a wise move.

I agree with the comments above that it's time people who live in large houses and struggle to pay the bills should consider a lodger. Everyone benefits (if the lodger and homeower are compatible, of stable personality and open to compromise). I believe it would also help improve a lot of people's mental health having someone to socialise with on a regular basis.

bristolleedsfan

Freebird53 said:

Sorry, i meant wholesale gas prices!

Gas for delivery Dec-March is approx £4.00 therm -  13.6p kWh

MattMattMattUK

Elisheba said:

A country borrowing money is not he problem, it is perfectly normal. 

A country borrowing money in isolation is not the problem, a country borrowing money expensively, when the cost of it servicing it's existing debt is already huge is a problem. The UK has had a budget deficit every year since 2002 and only had a surplus in the years 1997-2021 when Labour experienced a boom, but stuck to Major's spending plan. After that Brown went on a borrowing spree, Osbourne carried on and Covid meant we borrowed more than in the seven previous years combined. The UK is spending over £100 billion on debt interest for on-book borrowing, the cost of off-book borrowing (PPP, PFI etc.) costs around another £60 billion a year, so 15-20% of all government spending is on debt interest. That is not normal and that is why it has become a problem. 

Elisheba said:
The immediate problem here is that what Truss etc. promised would have involved such massive borrowing that the markets (who absorb that debt in the form of government bonds or gilts) were not in a position to absorb it all at once, and didn't feel like it was a sound investment due to the lack of fiscal responsibility.  This in turn led to a situation where the interest rates on existing bonds was higher, making teh debt more expensive.  It looks tentatively as though yesterday's minibudget reversal has stabilised things slightly and the yields are decreasing again.

Truss was/is a disaster, she made a bad situation worse, but the reality is the Conservatives had been fiscally irresponsible for the previous twelve years and brown was fiscally irresponsible for the last six years of his Chancellorship, we have had eighteen years of governments which have borrowed far too much and that is biting is in the rear and will continue to do so for decades to come even if we choose to tackle it now. Of course we will not, the can will be kicked down the road in the hope that somehow our children can find a whole forest of magic money trees. Hunt as steadied the ship, but in a nautical analysis the ship is holed below the water line, has taken on a huge amount of water and is relying on sealed bulkheads and emergency pumps to keep it from sinking, it is already below it's safe margins and the choice now is do we do something about that water (debt), do we ignore the problem and hope it will go away (Labour), or do we open the bulkheads and pray we can function as a submarine (Truss).

Elisheba said:

So lenders haven't decided we are not worth lending to any more  - they decided in that situation we were planning to borrow too much and it hadn't been budgeted for properly.  Going forwards, hopefully that will not be such a problem.  I agree governments cant 'lob money around' - as the current crisis has shown us they need to show fiscal responsibility in order to be able to borrow, 

We are going to pay for that though, which is going to make borrowing more and more painful, although I suspect as always people will choose short term benefit and ignore the long term consequences. 

Elisheba said:

And in regards to the so called 'snowflake years' which you seem to define as the last 20 years - have you forgotten the financial crash of 2008?  The massive government austerity in place until 2016 to pay for bailing out the banks?  As I work in the public sector, and we have had nothing but budget cuts and restructures since then I certainly haven't.  And while it was certainly easy to get into personal debt prior to 2008, since then it has been a lot harder to borrow money.  However, as capitalism relies on continuous spending and a throw away culture, so I doubt we will ever get back to a situation where debt is extremely unusual.

There was not really "massive government austerity" in place though, both TME and spending as a percentage of GDP rose in every year apart from FY 09-10. There was no cost to for "bailing out the banks", if you look at what actually happened the government put in place guarantees which were not needed. It did buy Lloyds (bad move) but even that we ended up making a small profit on over time. Borrowing did not really get harder after 2008 for anything but a year or two, the last decade personal borrowing has surged and pre-covid was the highest it has ever been.

Elisheba said:

I do agree its unlikely we will ever get anything like the subsidy we are getting for energy this winter again, and that ideally people should be tightening their belts.

It is also unlikely we will get the free flowing, excessive borrowing that we have had for the last twenty years again either, the UK needs to accept the wakeup call, unfortunately I doubt it will. 

Max68

wittynamegoeshere said:

As I said, sharing may be the answer.

After all, we've had large population growth over lots of years and nothing like the same growth in the number of homes.  So it seems logical that people who currently live alone may need to live with someone else.

I was a student back in the 1990s.  I lodged with two different lots of middle-aged people, this was all pretty normal back then.  I got a roof over my head, they got some extra money towards the bills.

Interesting theory but at the same time would a person's rent pay the bills enough for the owner to be better off?  If not it's Imo pointless for the hassle.  I live alone in a three-bed terrace, although the third bedroom isn't enough to swing a cat so it's basically an office.  To try and save money on the drier my clothes dry in the spare bedroom which also contains everything else there is no storage for.  It's one bathroom and even when I had an ex living here it was very crowded.  With a lodger council tax would go up 25%, more energy and water would be used, more food required etc etc.  Would be interested to see what I would have to charge in rent to make it worthwhile.

I've looked at moving to somewhere smaller for just me, but even decent flats around here are expensive and with mortgages through the roof not the time.  I even looked at moving out of the area, but the cons outweighed the pros.

My mum lived alone in the old family house and despite years of suggesting she might be better somewhere smaller she didn't want to move.  In the end dementia meant she had to and now those house proceeds pay for her care at the tune of just under £5000 a month!!

It certainly might be an option for some, but I don't think it's the perfect solution for many.

I agree with you though that there has been population growth which is unsustainable but rather than hammer singletons who get very little in the way of benefits why not a campaign that unless people can afford to have children without support from the government then maybe refrain from having them, that would put some money back in the coffers.  Controversial it would be I hasten to add.

ariarnia

wittynamegoeshere said:

ariarnia said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

I don't have the answers, I'm just pointing out that the govt probably can't make life comfortable for everyone, whether they want to or not.  People will have to do whatever they need to.  Downsizing, house-sharing or geting a lodger may be the answer.  Perhaps the days when a single person could run an entire house on one typical income are gone, this probably wasn't usually possible in the past anyway - perhaps we've all got used to an unsustainable way of living?

again no problem with that in principle but where does all this cheap to run smaller housing come from? exactly the same problem as the bedroom tax to punish people for having a spare room when there aren't smaller houses to swap to or the smaller place would be unsuitable and more expensive. 

As I said, sharing may be the answer.

After all, we've had large population growth over lots of years and nothing like the same growth in the number of homes.  So it seems logical that people who currently live alone may need to live with someone else.

I was a student back in the 1990s.  I lodged with two different lots of middle-aged people, this was all pretty normal back then.  I got a roof over my head, they got some extra money towards the bills.

and if you live in a city where there are a lot of people looking for lodging that's a great idea. anyone not living in a university town might find it a bit harder though. 

most things to 'fix' the situation will cost money (changing appliances for more energy efficient ones. insualtion. moving.) and are dependent on a lot of things outside of a persons control. meaning the ideal solution you come up with simply won't work for lots of people. it's not that easy. 

there are people who are genuinely doing everything they can to cut back and live to their means and are on just enough that they don't get benefits but £4k a year energy bills will be crippling. 

that needs to be acknowledged. and people should stop and think before making sweeping judgements about morality and the 'deserving of help' when the important thing is people are in need of help and can't cope. 

sienew

ariarnia said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

I don't have the answers, I'm just pointing out that the govt probably can't make life comfortable for everyone, whether they want to or not.  People will have to do whatever they need to.  Downsizing, house-sharing or geting a lodger may be the answer.  Perhaps the days when a single person could run an entire house on one typical income are gone, this probably wasn't usually possible in the past anyway - perhaps we've all got used to an unsustainable way of living?

again no problem with that in principle but where does all this cheap to run smaller housing come from? exactly the same problem as the bedroom tax to punish people for having a spare room when there aren't smaller houses to swap to or the smaller place would be unsuitable and more expensive. 

I'm confused by you keep saying that smaller houses are unavailable, unsuitable and more expensive. That is almost never the case. There seems to be plenty 1-2 bedroom houses on the market, probably even more available than larger houses, they are generally much more suitable for people living alone or couples (especially older people) and it's very rare that a 1-2 bedroom property is anywhere near the same price as a 4-5 bedroom property in the same area. Downsizing usually frees up capital that's often held in large family homes as well.

People not wanting to move is obviously the main factor but many people do have the opportunity to move to a smaller home.

When the government is giving out handouts (which energy rebates/grants/freezes) essentially are, you first start by dealing with needs rather than what people want. You first start with the people who have no opportunity to help themselves and are at real risk of legitimately being in real poverty (lack of heat/food). From there if there is the money to go beyond that to help people less in need or those that have other avenues to help themselves you do... but they unfortunately have to come secondary to those who are legitimately desperate.

ariarnia

sienew said:

ariarnia said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

I don't have the answers, I'm just pointing out that the govt probably can't make life comfortable for everyone, whether they want to or not.  People will have to do whatever they need to.  Downsizing, house-sharing or geting a lodger may be the answer.  Perhaps the days when a single person could run an entire house on one typical income are gone, this probably wasn't usually possible in the past anyway - perhaps we've all got used to an unsustainable way of living?

again no problem with that in principle but where does all this cheap to run smaller housing come from? exactly the same problem as the bedroom tax to punish people for having a spare room when there aren't smaller houses to swap to or the smaller place would be unsuitable and more expensive. 

I'm confused by you keep saying that smaller houses are unavailable, unsuitable and more expensive. That is almost never the case. There seems to be plenty 1-2 bedroom houses on the market, probably even more available than larger houses, they are generally much more suitable for people living alone or couples (especially older people) and it's very rare that a 1-2 bedroom property is anywhere near the same price as a 4-5 bedroom property in the same area. Downsizing usually frees up capital that's often held in large family homes as well.

the people we were talking about at the start were elderly people who had raised a family and were now in a larger house. our experience looking for options for the MIL the number of properties suitable for someone in that situation are much more limited than 'what's on the market'. there's a reason bungalows tend to be rare on the market and more expensive than other places the same size. 

small houses (at least in the areas we were looking) were either poorly insulated and had damp problems/no GSH. would need a lot of money to make comfortable/'update'. would cause problems for accessibility as she gets more unsteady as she gets older (her current house could be adapted if needed). there were very few options we found that wouldn't cost a huge amount of money up front or cause more problems down the line.

even putting the house on the market to sell costs money up front plus the stress and practical difficultly of actually downsizing is not as easy at 70 as it is at 30.  moving house is not easy. 

allison445

This announcement yesterday was devastating news for me I do not have any more hard choices left in me 

I was thrown a rope by the government that gave me some hope for the future and I now have rope burns left by a government who make poor decisions which effect us all 

ariarnia

Max68 said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

As I said, sharing may be the answer.

After all, we've had large population growth over lots of years and nothing like the same growth in the number of homes.  So it seems logical that people who currently live alone may need to live with someone else.

I was a student back in the 1990s.  I lodged with two different lots of middle-aged people, this was all pretty normal back then.  I got a roof over my head, they got some extra money towards the bills.

 Would be interested to see what I would have to charge in rent to make it worthwhile.

.

if you look at shared room rate for your local area it would give you an idea of what you could charge (obviously you could go a little higher or lower depending on how badly you needed the money or how much demand there was in the area. 

here it's about £59 a week.