New prices in April

MattMattMattUK

EssexHebridean said:

Martin is leaning ever closer to the view that the EPG will stay where it is - and allowing for the support his letter is gaining literally by the day I’d say he’s probably right to be gaining confidence in the idea. 

It’s probably too early to be comfoin assuming the rise won’t happen, but it’s certainly beginning to look more like it may not. Ironically the exception there if it is frozen may well be for E7 customers who will potentially see a change to their day/night split again which could cause an increase in costs - it will be the second time this year for most if so! 

I really hope that they do not cave, it would be absolutely the wrong thing to do fiscally. I know the public have become hooked on handouts but that is no way to run a sustainable economy and every expenditure or borrowing in one area had short and long term impacts and the government and much of the electorate seem to be ignoring them. We as a nation need to stop loading up our children and grandchildren with debt and start to think medium and long term rather than short term.

I think Martin has done a lot of good for consumers, but I also feel that he regularly ignores the wider legacy of constantly demanding the government borrow and spend.

mrsg1990

I watched a really interesting documentary on 40d (channel 4 catch up) 3 part about energy and where's and how it's made: https://www.channel4.com/programmes/guy-martins-great-british-power-trip

Makes you appreciate what it takes to give us energy 

EssexHebridean

MattMattMattUK said:

EssexHebridean said:

Martin is leaning ever closer to the view that the EPG will stay where it is - and allowing for the support his letter is gaining literally by the day I’d say he’s probably right to be gaining confidence in the idea. 

It’s probably too early to be comfoin assuming the rise won’t happen, but it’s certainly beginning to look more like it may not. Ironically the exception there if it is frozen may well be for E7 customers who will potentially see a change to their day/night split again which could cause an increase in costs - it will be the second time this year for most if so! 

I really hope that they do not cave, it would be absolutely the wrong thing to do fiscally. I know the public have become hooked on handouts but that is no way to run a sustainable economy and every expenditure or borrowing in one area had short and long term impacts and the government and much of the electorate seem to be ignoring them. We as a nation need to stop loading up our children and grandchildren with debt and start to think medium and long term rather than short term.

I think Martin has done a lot of good for consumers, but I also feel that he regularly ignores the wider legacy of constantly demanding the government borrow and spend.

He’s very clear in that his position is purely a consumer lead one in fairness - he regularly agrees that he is fortunate in that he doesn’t have to take a “bigger picture” of balancing the books into account - that is what the government/treasury are there for - so his standpoint is purely what is the best thing for consumers. 

I’ve said before I can really see both sides of the argument on the question of the EPG - but ultimately, a far bigger sum is in the budget for the next quarter for the subsidisation of energy bills than will actually now be required even if the level is left at £2500. As a saving will be being made regardless, I’m inclined to agree with Martin/the charities that the mental health implications (and so the subsequent required increase to that budget, going forwards) of an increase to bills at this stage outweighs the impact on the taxpayer down the line. For context - our household would come in at the lower end of the middle income level - but I personally am a lower earner, so I’m really not influenced over much by the concerns about how much my personal tax bill will increase - although I can understand why others who are in a different position financially are giving more consideration and weight to that aspect. I’ve also acknowledged repeatedly that we are in a very fortunate position of being able to afford our bills currently. We are also relatively low energy users however which in itself puts us in a better position - and more so as our unit rate for electricity still averages well below even the current EPG rate thanks to the amount we shift to overnight use.

I think there is a huge difference between suggesting people are “hooked on handouts” and acknowledging that there are still genuinely people out there who right now cannot make ends meet without resorting to using credit for basic living expenses - and many of those people have had nothing more than the £150 CT rebate, the £400 EBSS and the benefit of the EPG rates which the majority of us have benefited from - whether we needed them or not.

It’s a bit like that bleeding cut again - sometimes you just need to stick a plaster on, and acknowledge that you might have to change the plaster every hour until the bleeding fully stops, because the long term approach of “oh it will stop bleeding and heal eventually” while technically correct is just too messy in the immediate. 

So in summary - I agree with you in theory, but not in practise! 😆

EssexHebridean

mrsg1990 said:

I watched a really interesting documentary on 40d (channel 4 catch up) 3 part about energy and where's and how it's made: https://www.channel4.com/programmes/guy-martins-great-british-power-trip

Makes you appreciate what it takes to give us energy 

Like all his programmes, it was fascinating! 

MattMattMattUK

EssexHebridean said:

MattMattMattUK said:

EssexHebridean said:

Martin is leaning ever closer to the view that the EPG will stay where it is - and allowing for the support his letter is gaining literally by the day I’d say he’s probably right to be gaining confidence in the idea. 

It’s probably too early to be comfoin assuming the rise won’t happen, but it’s certainly beginning to look more like it may not. Ironically the exception there if it is frozen may well be for E7 customers who will potentially see a change to their day/night split again which could cause an increase in costs - it will be the second time this year for most if so! 

I really hope that they do not cave, it would be absolutely the wrong thing to do fiscally. I know the public have become hooked on handouts but that is no way to run a sustainable economy and every expenditure or borrowing in one area had short and long term impacts and the government and much of the electorate seem to be ignoring them. We as a nation need to stop loading up our children and grandchildren with debt and start to think medium and long term rather than short term.

I think Martin has done a lot of good for consumers, but I also feel that he regularly ignores the wider legacy of constantly demanding the government borrow and spend.

He’s very clear in that his position is purely a consumer lead one in fairness - he regularly agrees that he is fortunate in that he doesn’t have to take a “bigger picture” of balancing the books into account - that is what the government/treasury are there for - so his standpoint is purely what is the best thing for consumers. 

To a point I agree, but the thing is it will also impact consumers long term as well. I do not see it as a consumer vs taxpayer situation, more a short term vs long term view and I find that an odd gap in Martin's thinking as in personal finance terms he is very much in favour of long term planning.

EssexHebridean said:

I’ve said before I can really see both sides of the argument on the question of the EPG - but ultimately, a far bigger sum is in the budget for the next quarter for the subsidisation of energy bills than will actually now be required even if the level is left at £2500. As a saving will be being made regardless, I’m inclined to agree with Martin/the charities that the mental health implications (and so the subsequent required increase to that budget, going forwards) of an increase to bills at this stage outweighs the impact on the taxpayer down the line. For context - our household would come in at the lower end of the middle income level - but I personally am a lower earner, so I’m really not influenced over much by the concerns about how much my personal tax bill will increase - although I can understand why others who are in a different position financially are giving more consideration and weight to that aspect. I’ve also acknowledged repeatedly that we are in a very fortunate position of being able to afford our bills currently. We are also relatively low energy users however which in itself puts us in a better position - and more so as our unit rate for electricity still averages well below even the current EPG rate thanks to the amount we shift to overnight use.

I do not see the mental cost as being any different to now, other than perhaps because of the media making it sound far worse than it is. For those on lower incomes, those on pre-payment (7.8 million households) who are usually the least well off will see a seasonal drop in their energy usage that should mitigate most or all of the increase. The additional £2.6 billion, even if the argument is that it "must" be spent and then must be spent on benefits rather than reducing borrowing or spending it on health, social care, pot holes, policing etc, would be that it would be better off divided up between say those on disability benefits, doubling child benefit for a year, one off uprating to UC claimants etc. rather than just subsidising energy prices at a higher rate for three months. 

I recognise that I am in a fortunate position, through a combination of hard work and luck and that position means I will ultimately be one of those paying for this in the long run. Personally I would prefer a much more Scandinavian style social and tax system even though that would involve me paying more, so I have no issue with higher taxes provided that they are used for the benefit of society, not short termism that does not improve society. 

EssexHebridean said:

I think there is a huge difference between suggesting people are “hooked on handouts” and acknowledging that there are still genuinely people out there who right now cannot make ends meet without resorting to using credit for basic living expenses - and many of those people have had nothing more than the £150 CT rebate, the £400 EBSS and the benefit of the EPG rates which the majority of us have benefited from - whether we needed them or not.

I agree that there is a difference, that is partly what the uprating of benefits by 10.5% is there to alleviate, though the reality is it should be closer to 15% on top of the £900 additional payments going to 8-9 million households (nearly a third of all households) however the people making the most noise about this seem to be less bothered about those and more about middle earners who will not get the £900. Furlough was too generous, badly targeted, far too easy to defraud and went on too long. BBLs were far to generous, badly targeted and too easy to defraud. The £200/400 that morphed into the EBSS only exists as it was designed to try and distract from the Sue Grey Report and should have been abolished once the EPG was introduced. The £150 was only announced to try and distract from other government bad news and was badly targeted. The EPG made sense, though perhaps it should have had a maximum usage figure as the schemes in Germany, France, the Netherlands etc. did with their schemes, but it also rendered the EBSS redundant, having both schemes made no sense, just as the alternative fuels payment makes no sense as those fuel costs are around 30-40% cheaper than mains gas, but were still subsidised. 

EssexHebridean said:

It’s a bit like that bleeding cut again - sometimes you just need to stick a plaster on, and acknowledge that you might have to change the plaster every hour until the bleeding fully stops, because the long term approach of “oh it will stop bleeding and heal eventually” while technically correct is just too messy in the immediate. 

If I could borrow your analogy, what I feel is more the case is that this is a wound that needs stiches, we keep putting a plaster on it and wondering why that does not stop the bleeding, meanwhile where the rest of the limb has mild grazing we are applying plasters to that as well, stopping it healing, then to top it off we are using up plasters on the rest of the people who suffered at most some mild bruising and in many cases no injury at all. My priority would be to help the person who needs stiches and ignore the ones with no injuries who are complaining that to be fair they should get plasters as well otherwise it is unfair. 

wrf12345

The govn can subsidise the absurdly high standing charges rather than the unit cost, a fixed cost rather than a blank cheque on consumption, which can then gradually be eliminated over say five years, forcing the energy companies to cut their own costs to cover the loss of income - this would then leave the unit cost to come down as energy costs come down rather than stay high to pay back the huge sums of money the govn is putting into the sector. Comsumers would save circa £350 of the s/c's and have every incentive to avoid high consumption.

MattMattMattUK

wrf12345 said:

The govn can subsidise the absurdly high standing charges rather than the unit cost,

That money goes towards the fixed costs of running the network, it is not some throw away amount, neither is it "absurdly high", but reflective of the costs involved.

wrf12345 said:

Ta fixed cost rather than a blank cheque on consumption,

Saving people 30p a day is not really going to help them, neither does it shelter them from the impact of cold weather, which is why the EPG was there, even if it not a great idea overall.

wrf12345 said:

which can then gradually be eliminated over say five years, forcing the energy companies to cut their own costs to cover the loss of income

The standing charge covers the fixed costs of operating the network, the suppliers do not get to keep it, it is handed over to the network operators. If you mean "cut" on what the network operators spend, then that would involve cutting pack on maintenance and usage. 

wrf12345 said:

this would then leave the unit cost to come down as energy costs come down rather than stay high to pay back the huge sums of money the govn is putting into the sector.

The unit cost will come down when supply costs come down, the government or "govn" as you for some reason call it, is not planning on taking money back out of the energy supply sector and the subsidies have been to the benefit of the consumer.

wrf12345 said:

Comsumers would save circa £350 of the s/c's and have every incentive to avoid high consumption.

Consumers would still have to pay that amount as the standing charges go to maintain the network, all abolishing the Standing Charge would achieve is to make everyone other than low users subsidise those low users, the main beneficiaries would be those with solar and heat pumps, the losers would be everyone else. 

deano2099

Doesn't part of the standing charge go towards SOLR payments though, which basically repay a loan from the government? So there's an argument that the better subsidy is the government writing off that loan, thus bringing the standing charge down? Which also has the added "benefit" of cutting everyone's bills the same amount, rather than giving a large subsidy to high users.

EssexHebridean

@MattMattMattUK There’s relatively little you’ve said I would disagree with - at least in theory. I think the media have a huge amount to answer for in terms of the harm being done to mental health in this country - that applies not only to the current energy crisis where they have been ridiculously irresponsible with their reporting, but also in many other areas too. If it were just the gutter press then that would be a bit different but it really isn’t any more - lazy reporting and just looking to maximise clicks regardless of who gets hurt seems to be prevalent pretty much across the board. 

As for the stitches analogy - that would be ideal, I’d completely agree. The problem is though, the person who’s needing the stitches has gone into hiding and it will require a manhunt and huge expenditure to find them - so issuing plasters to everyone is seemingly a more budget friendly option. Having said that, I’d still question why we can be this far into the situation and still nobody has been able to work out a way to target the help to where it is most needed. Even some form of voluntary opt-out scheme would be a start - although again, expensive to administer and it would of course come with attendant bullying and shaming which would have its own harms - I can fully imagine that having opted out would rapidly become “bragging rights” on here for some, for a start! 

EssexHebridean

Oh - BBC Newsflash just appeared on my phone confirming that the chancellor is expected to extend the current EPG for a further three months. Currently stated as “BBC Understands” but seems now to be fairly certain I’d suggest.