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

xeny

OhWow said:

55Ant said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

It just needs a fixed number of subsidised units per household, there will be winners and losers and some would no doubt plead over their special circumstances, but this is always how things are.  This would be preferable to some complicated system that ends up subsidising lords of the manor.

Not agreeing or disagreeing, but a bit of an issue with this is the government has told everyone to buy an electric car for the last 5 years, which is going to be a substantial portion of energy (and maybe, the bigger the better as its a replacement for petrol? I dont know, its such a mess before even opening the EV cars are sustainable idea!?)

And a previous government encouraged people to buy polluting diesel cars!!

Matter of which pollutant is seen as a priority - diesels gave off less CO2, and there wasn't a good understanding of how bad diesel particulate pollution is.

MattMattMattUK

Marvel1 said:

Basically, what should have gone up from 1st October will now be a double whammy, October rises will happen in April with the rises in April too.4

They can shove their £66 voucher I have received and the 5 to folllow.

So you are angry that they have given you a huge subsidy for six months, and as you are so angry about being handed free money you want them to shove some of that where the sun doesn't shine? Sounds a bit irrationally aggressive to me!

MattMattMattUK

xeny said:

OhWow said:

55Ant said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

It just needs a fixed number of subsidised units per household, there will be winners and losers and some would no doubt plead over their special circumstances, but this is always how things are.  This would be preferable to some complicated system that ends up subsidising lords of the manor.

Not agreeing or disagreeing, but a bit of an issue with this is the government has told everyone to buy an electric car for the last 5 years, which is going to be a substantial portion of energy (and maybe, the bigger the better as its a replacement for petrol? I dont know, its such a mess before even opening the EV cars are sustainable idea!?)

And a previous government encouraged people to buy polluting diesel cars!!

Matter of which pollutant is seen as a priority - diesels gave off less CO2, and there wasn't a good understanding of how bad diesel particulate pollution is.

There was a good enough understanding of how bad it was, but the government of the day chose to ignore that as they wanted to be able to say that they had reduced CO2 emissions. 

AlanGF1969

Robgmun said:

dunstonh said:

To be honest, that is a sensible move.   The current package was far too generous.   Many people initially looked at how they could save energy but gave up with the EPG came.  

Now people can go back to finding ways to save energy, and if they don't, then they pay for it bar those that really need support.

Plus by April, we will be through the worst and heating use will be falling.

I've already looked at how to "save energy", I've cut my overall bill by a 3rd, even with the Oct price rise. I can't save any more energy without sitting in the dark reading by candle light, we have to live humanly you know. If the prices rises continue as planned we'll be spending more than we ever have. 

So you can stick your post up your behind. Middle income earners need help too

Robgmun. Totally agree with you! 'Targeted' help will lead to resentment, and will almost certainly mean the Tories will no longer be in power. We need an emergency general election forced through, and get Labour into power.

sienew

ariarnia said:

sienew said:

ariarnia said:

sienew said:

mmmmikey said:

GingerTim said:

sienew said:

Like I said before the EPG was announced I am a big fan of proposals that gives every person an allowance of cheap/subsidised energy to provide for their basic need. If you go above that basic need the prices shouldn't be subsidised by the taxpayer.

This is what's being strongly hinted at by Faisal Islam on the BBC.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1581962442892275715?s=20&t=Ctg-nQ3tu4cEB1z4PP5AyQ

Or maybe the Rishi Sunak approach of giving every household the first £400 worth of energy for free and splitting that into 6 payments over the most expensive months of the year, and providing additional help on top of that for those that need it most. Sure, it could benefit from being finessed to better support the "squeezed middle" but not a bad idea IMHO.

Change it to per person instead of per household and I think that works better. By household is incredibly bad targeting, a student in a tiny 1 bedroom flat (who lets be honest is almost never home) doesn't need the same support as a family home with 4-5 people living in it. A grant per person works far better as it should allow for a basic usage for everyone in the household.

i would say property size or epc rating not household. with supplement for age and disability. two people in a flat dont use much more electric and probably no more heating at all than one person but someone in a three bed uses more than someone in a flat. 

Property size doesn't work particularly well because of how they are occupied. As an example in my family there is someone older who lives alone in a larger 4.5 bed semi  (kids grew up and left) whereas there is someone else on my family significantly less well off who lives 4 people in a tiny 2 bed terrace. It's hard to justify subsiding someone who lives in a house that is far too big for their needs. The hard reality which people don't want to face is that many elderly people are living in homes that are far too big for them while the young are often in houses that are far too small for them. Theoretically we should be encouraging people to live in houses that fit their requirements.

depends what you mean by 'works' if you mean supporting people in the situation they are in based on need then it works. if you're talking about using the help as a way of pushing your social agenda then it doesn't. same as cutting working age benefits because they should get a job. i dont' really care if elderly people are in houses that are 'too big for them' that they raised their family in. moving house is hard and expensive and theres no guarantee theres any suitable house anywhere near their family and support system. i care if they're cold in winter and skipping meals to have the heating or vise versa. 

By "works" I mean target those who most need help.

We all have basic needs and it's reasonable to make them affordable to people. The government paying thousands of pounds for a single person to live in a 4-5 bedroom house isn't an essential need. Government money (basically our money) isn't unlimited and should always be targeted. It's easy to justify a subsidised X kwh allowance for everyone to cover basic needs, it becomes much harder to justify handing people money because they happen to live in a larger house (which often are less occupied than smaller ones), especially when you consider the poorest who most need help tend to live in the smaller houses.

AlanGF1969

Along with the general cost of living, and higher mortgage repayments, this absolute sickening decision by the imbecile Hunt today is going to force thousands of households into losing their homes and unable to eat properly. The big energy companies should have been forced to pay for the bulk of the energy price freeze - their profits disgustingly high! 

AlanGF1969

Also, why didn't they lower VAT on fuel, or altogether, get rid of it?

sienew

AlanGF1969 said:

Along with the general cost of living, and higher mortgage repayments, this absolute sickening decision by the imbecile Hunt today is going to force thousands of households into losing their homes and unable to eat properly. The big energy companies should have been forced to pay for the bulk of the energy price freeze - their profits disgustingly high! 

Good luck telling the French government (who essentially own EDF and supply a lot of our energy) that they will have to pay for our energy. Or good luck telling the companies in Norway who send us gas that they should pay for our bills while somehow at the same time hoping they don't sell it to the rest of Europe instead who will pay these prices because they are facing blackouts this winter.

Robgmun

dunstonh said:

I disagree.   People have become lazy with cheap energy.  It is very easy for most to reduce their energy costs.  We reduced ours from 20kWh per day to under 10kWh per day just by turning things of at the plug and not leaving them on standby, changing some bulbs and using them less, using eco modes on the dishwasher and replacing an older Fridge/freezer

We see threads like that in this section every week.

You see "dunstonh", we have done almost exactly the same thing. We reduced ours from 20kWh per day to under 10kWh per day also (can post my stats if you want). We went from using £210 worth per month in Aug to £93 per month in Sept. We're on track to use £105 in Oct due to price rises. 

We changed all our light bulbs to LED, turned off the immersion heater on the boiler, using smart plugs everywhere to not have anything on standby. We don't waste electricity anywhere, we don't use dishwashers or tumble dryers (never had) We only have the boiler on 1hr twice a day to make sure everyone has enough hot water to shower and clean the dishes, brush their teeth etc. We don't have a car, never go on holiday. Never go out to restaurants or the cinema. We don't have any more Luxarys to cut. 

Is there anything else we can do dunstonh while you pontificate on high? Because your posts are pretty insulting while we despair at the fact princes are possibly going to double in 6 months

Sterlingtimes

Where would the posters here who oppose profiteering invest their pension money? Presumably, they would elect to invest in guaranteed profit-free funds.