'Unfair' standing charges need to go: MPs back Martin's and MSE's calls for energy bill overhaul

mmmmikey

The_Green_Hornet said:

MattMattMattUK said:

I think the annoyance is because those of us look at things rationally see the standing charge as a sensible proposition and many people (not all) come on with emotional rants about why standing charges need to be cut "think of the poor, think of the children" style complaints, ignoring that moving the costs to the unit rate would likely cost those people more.

I think I understand. As you only regard your view as being the rational/sensible one you get annoyed when others have a different view.

You must get annoyed a lot.

Both - let's not personalise this.....

The_Green_Hornet

mmmmikey said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

MattMattMattUK said:

I think the annoyance is because those of us look at things rationally see the standing charge as a sensible proposition and many people (not all) come on with emotional rants about why standing charges need to be cut "think of the poor, think of the children" style complaints, ignoring that moving the costs to the unit rate would likely cost those people more.

I think I understand. As you only regard your view as being the rational/sensible one you get annoyed when others have a different view.

You must get annoyed a lot.

Both - let's not personalise this.....

I think that ship sailed a long time ago. Far too many posters have an "I'm right you are wrong" attitude on here.

Maybe we should just all embrace the fact that people have different views?

mark_cycling00

here we go again... middle class people with solar panels and second homes in Devon trying to offload some of their bills onto poor families in blocks of flats who have to heat their homes through electric storage heaters.

Gerry1

MattMattMattUK said

Gerry1 said:

The best way to help would be scrap VAT on energy bills as frequently promised by Gove before the Brexit referendum.

Scrapping VAT on energy would be a bad idea, it would make little use to individuals as it is only 5%, but on the scale that it applies it would cost a huge amount to the exchequer and that would either create a bigger deficit, or have to be made up elsewhere. 

Seems to be 20% VAT for those in park homes.

Krakkkers

mark_cycling00 said:

here we go again... middle class people with solar panels and second homes in Devon trying to offload some of their bills onto poor families in blocks of flats who have to heat their homes through electric storage heaters.

Pretty presumptuous of you, my second home is in Dorset.

[Deleted User]

We've lived in our current house for 10 years, for the first 5 or so SSE supplied, they took what they took as payment, came to read the meter whenever and I didn't even look at the bills.

There is no longer any requirement for suppliers to read domestic meters. This requirement was dropped from the Supply Licence some years ago. The requirement now is to obtain a meter reading once every 12 months. If consumers want to avoid estimated bills the answer is simple: provide regular meter readings or get a smart meter.

MattMattMattUK

The_Green_Hornet said:

MattMattMattUK said:

I think the annoyance is because those of us look at things rationally see the standing charge as a sensible proposition and many people (not all) come on with emotional rants about why standing charges need to be cut "think of the poor, think of the children" style complaints, ignoring that moving the costs to the unit rate would likely cost those people more.

I think I understand. As you only regard your view as being the rational/sensible one you get annoyed when others have a different view.

You must get annoyed a lot.

Other people can have a rational position that I disagree with, indeed in many situations there will be situations where there are multiple, conflicting views, reached rationally, by rational actors. The issue is that almost all of the arguments put forward for dropping the standing charge are not rational, they will not achieve the proposers stated aims and they can be easily refuted. 

One of the arguments for abolishing standing charges is "it will save poor people money", yet the data says the opposite, moving those costs to unit rates will actually increase the energy costs of the disabled, pensioners, those in poorly insulated homes etc. and will benefit those with good insulation, solar, batteries etc. There are variations on that, all with an appeal to emotion, "It will help keep children warm", "Abolishing standing charges will stop granny freezing to death" etc. yet none of those are logical positions borne out by evidence, they are entirely emotional statements. The anti-standing charge bunch claim that they want to help low income households, but their proposals will make those consumers energy costs increase, not decrease. 

The solution if we wish to help those on low incomes with energy costs is not to alter a rational and functional system, it is not to create a new scheme which is an inefficient bodge (WHD) or market distorting with cliff edge problems (social tariffs), it is to increase benefits/pensions to a level which works, possibly with a COLA component that can rise and fall, as well as the annual inflation following rise. 

mmmmikey

mark_cycling00 said:

here we go again... middle class people with solar panels and second homes in Devon trying to offload some of their bills onto poor families in blocks of flats who have to heat their homes through electric storage heaters.

 

A snappy summary that in my view captures the issue well (in part at least)  

But if you've followed the debate about standing charges on the forum (IIRC there have been a couple of other threads on this issue ) you'll see that much of the debate against removing standing charges has come from folks who own solar panels, etc. and would benefit financially if they were removed (including myself). Many of us actually found ourselves having our best winter ever last winter as a result of (in our view) poorly targetted Government support measures. Nice to have the cash but we would have preferred it to only have gone to those who need it and for the future tax burden of paying for it to be less.

We support Martin's objective of helping those in need but  as you point out there will be unintended consequences.

MikeJXE

mark_cycling00 said:

here we go again... middle class people with solar panels and second homes in Devon trying to offload some of their bills onto poor families in blocks of flats who have to heat their homes through electric storage heaters.

I moved into a ground floor flat 3rd February and read my meter thankfully electric and gas every week.

In the last 34 weeks my electric standing charge has been higher than my usage for 13 of them 

For gas the standing charge has been higher for 17 of them. 

How is it fair as the only way I can reverse that is to use more. 

matt_drummer

MikeJXE said:

mark_cycling00 said:

here we go again... middle class people with solar panels and second homes in Devon trying to offload some of their bills onto poor families in blocks of flats who have to heat their homes through electric storage heaters.

I moved into a ground floor flat 3rd February and read my meter thankfully electric and gas every week.

In the last 34 weeks my electric standing charge has been higher than my usage for 13 of them 

For gas the standing charge has been higher for 17 of them. 

How is it fair as the only way I can reverse that is to use more. 

Why does your usage need to be more than the standing charge?

Surely if you want to save money you use less?

And you seem to have achieved your goal?

What you seem to be looking for is a way to consume nothing and therefore  pay nothing?

Or have I got that wrong?

If your usage being more than the standing charge why don't you use more? I guess it is because you don't need to and/or it will cost you more?