We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

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

1679111238

Comments

  • MattMattMattUK
    MattMattMattUK Posts: 11,584 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Fifth Anniversary Name Dropper
    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.
    The Conservatives MPs (or at least most of them) are well aware that they will not win a majority at the next general, they know they are going to lose the old red wall, they know they are going to lose traditional swing seats, they know they are going to lose traditionally safe seats, what they will be hoping is that there is a way that they can undo or mitigate some of the damage towards the right demographics so that they only lose a few of their previously safe seats. Current polling indicates that Labour will win somewhere between 410 and 450 seats at the next general election, with the Conservatives winning 110-140 seats, that would be the biggest majority since 1935 and both the lowest number of seats and the lowest share of of the votes in the history of the party.
    AlanGF1969 said:
    We need an emergency general election forced through, and get Labour into power.
    There is no way a general election can happen without at least 42 Conservative MPs voting against their own government in a confidence vote and that will not happen, we are stuck with them until they decide to call another general election, likely in summer 2024, but could well be dragged out until January 2025 if polling does not improve for them. 
  • MattMattMattUK
    MattMattMattUK Posts: 11,584 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Fifth Anniversary Name Dropper
    Also, why didn't they lower VAT on fuel, or altogether, get rid of it?
    Tax cuts would further add to both the inflationary pressure and the budget deficit, increasing government borrowing, borrowing costs and necessitating further even greater base rate rises. Tax cuts are not the answer to the current situation, they will make things worse, not better. 
  • ariarnia
    ariarnia Posts: 4,225 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    edited 17 October 2022 at 3:56PM
    sienew said:
    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.



    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.
    thats the logic behind the bedroom tax. doesn't work there and can't see it will work here. theres not enough small energy efficient properties and what homes there are arent always affordable or suitable. someone living in house which is on paper bigger than they need with poor energy efficiency because they can't afford to move or can't move beacause of their age or disability or need for family support system in the local area will need more help with energy bills and heating than a couple or small family living in a flat. number of people in a family is no indication of need. a bigger house WILL cost more to run and heat and a house or flat with a poor energy certificate WILL cost more to keep warm. 

    anything else is politics. and i have no interest in politics. 

     
    Almost everything will work again if you unplug it for a few minutes, including you. Anne Lamott

    It's amazing how those with a can-do attitude and willingness to 'pitch in and work' get all the luck, isn't it?

    Please consider buying some pet food and giving it to your local food bank collection or animal charity. Animals aren't to blame for the cost of living crisis.
  • MattMattMattUK
    MattMattMattUK Posts: 11,584 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Fifth Anniversary Name Dropper
    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! 
    Energy suppliers are allowed to make a maximum of 2% profit, most of them have been losing money for much of the last 18 months. Energy producers depending on who they are have made money if they extract, or lose money if they generate from extracted fossil fuels, those renewable and nuclear generators have made increased profits. However when they spend 2020 and the first half of 2021 losing billions, whey they had to pay people to take away oil in 2020, they were not bailed out by the government, so they should not be penalised now. They also make most of the profits on international activities, so that profit cannot be claimed by the UK and if it tried it would lead to an exodus of multinational companies and an end to inward investment. 
  • Those here who oppose profiteering may think that the answer to all of our ills is to raise corporation tax to 100%.
    I have osteoarthritis in my hands so I speak my messages into a microphone using Dragon. Some people make "typos" but I often make "speakos".
  • MattMattMattUK
    MattMattMattUK Posts: 11,584 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Fifth Anniversary Name Dropper
    Those here who oppose profiteering may think that the answer to all of our ills is to raise corporation tax to 100%.
    They probably advocate raising it to 200%...
  • ariarnia
    ariarnia Posts: 4,225 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Those here who oppose profiteering may think that the answer to all of our ills is to raise corporation tax to 100%.
    theres always a line between making a profit and profeetering. and who is responsible. energy suppliers have little influence and arent allowed to make a lot of profit. lots of people point to buying from parent companies but lots of suppliers dont have direct parent companies and buy at wholesale prices only. energy producers are often global corporations so are limited in what we can tax anyway. doesn't mean that during an energy crisis setting fire to your gas rather than selling it (russia) or limiting the amount of oil etc you release to the market (opec) is morally justifiable. 
    Almost everything will work again if you unplug it for a few minutes, including you. Anne Lamott

    It's amazing how those with a can-do attitude and willingness to 'pitch in and work' get all the luck, isn't it?

    Please consider buying some pet food and giving it to your local food bank collection or animal charity. Animals aren't to blame for the cost of living crisis.
  • Lorian
    Lorian Posts: 6,355 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 17 October 2022 at 4:06PM
    If just IF they were to introduce a cap on a maximum of 80% of this year's usage for next year (not sure if they might do that or not), If you have already done the work to get down from 10KWh/day to 20KWh/Day this year then you'd get capped rates on 8KWh/day next year instead of 16Kwh. would need quite a calculator :smile:
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.