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

dealyboy

@bristolleedsfan said:

MikeJXE said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

It does seem that this campaign is starting to gather some momentum to the annoyance of some posters.

Makes me wonder how come Martin gets huge support on almost everything he does except when it comes to the standing charge

Has he got it all wrong ? 

Plenty of support on Twitter, sadly every forum thread on this subject gets dominated by a few, the many just do not bother to say anything as they know same people will continue to post and post day and night for months on end the same thing supporting high standing charges.

Well, I know what you mean, and I don't agree with them, but they are entitled to their point of view and to put it strongly and repeatedly.

Standing charges are just plainly wrong as they are currently constituted, they treat everybody the same which is unfair and regressive.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the standing charge is not one thing, all or nothing, set charge vs. unit price vs . general taxation. It suits the agenda of some to see it as one thing. An informed debate needs to distinguish between the various incongruous constituents of the SC, and one's view will vary based on one's politics.

mmmmikey

Martin's proposal does nothing as far as I can see to reduce high energy costs. It takes the part of the costs currently billed as "standing charges", hides them in unit rates and/or general taxes and passes those costs straight back to energy customers. For many customers that simply means paying the same amount but in a less transparent way. And for every £1 one customer saves another £1 will be paid by someone else. This is all dressed to look like redsitributing wealth from the "rich" to the "poor", a principle many of the objectors to Martin's proposal would support. But has been said many times it is based on the over simplistic assumption that only the rich have bigger bills, which completely fails to consider the needs of other vulnerable groups such as pensioners, the ill, large families on low incomes, those living in poor quality rented housing and so on.

So I would be one of those people that @matt_drummer identifies who would gladly support a proposal that benefits those currently in need without taking money out of other vulnerable customers' pockets.

Scot_39

There are various views on the detail and the direction of energy policy.

Martin Lewis no longer runs this site.

He sold it - getting out for (according to Google) £87m over a decade ago.

You may wish to accept his every utterance as gospel.

Or gloss over others proposals on how it can be "simply" or "fairly" implemented.

Others reserve the right to question it and challenge when they disagree.

matt_drummer

dealyboy said:

Standing charges are just plainly wrong as they are currently constituted, they treat everybody the same which is unfair and regressive.

I think you know I am your `friend' and support you.

I am pretty sure we are in very different circumstances.

But please tell me why you shouldn't pay the same for your electricity supply as I do?

You are a human being just the same as me.

I really support getting help to those who need it, I would happily pay more.

But I also strongly believe that the fixed costs should be split equally over those who use the service.

If more support is needed for some people then that should be addressed.

But when or if extra help is given to people and they then choose to spend it on other things then they have no right to complain about the standing charge.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

matt_drummer said:

How could this service be delivered for less?

Realistically nothing, but there is one area of energy where vast profits are made, those companies have positioned themselves to be distant from both the consumer and western governments.

However as I've said before, if the likes of say Shell had to contribute more towards humanity the money would be better spent clearing up the devastation their extraction has caused rather than reducing our standing charges.

mmmmikey

bristolleedsfan said:

MikeJXE said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

It does seem that this campaign is starting to gather some momentum to the annoyance of some posters.

Makes me wonder how come Martin gets huge support on almost everything he does except when it comes to the standing charge

Has he got it all wrong ? 

Plenty of support on Twitter, sadly every forum thread on this subject gets dominated by a few, the many just do not bother to say anything as they know same people will continue to post and post day and night for months on end the same thing supporting high standing charges.

I don't believe it is the case that anybody on this forum proactively posts in favour of "high" standing charges. 

What happens is when concerns about the fairness of standing charges are raised by others, many of the "regulars" here point out that any costs taken out of standing charges appear somewhere else, and there is a real danger that those costs have to be borne by other vulnerable customers.

It's impossible to know what "the many" believe. Maybe they have just accepted the arguments presented by those posters concerned enough to voice their opinions against moving costs between vulnerable groups rather than address the real issues?

dealyboy

@matt_drummer said:

dealyboy said:

Standing charges are just plainly wrong as they are currently constituted, they treat everybody the same which is unfair and regressive.

I think you know I am your `friend' and support you.

I am pretty sure we are in very different circumstances.

But please tell me why you shouldn't pay the same for your electricity supply as I do?

You are a human being just the same as me.

I know ... we have been mutually supportive and respect humanity. There is no disrespect.

Honestly I think we need to separate out the various components of the standing charge, my view differs dependent on whether we are talking about the network/connection charge, SOLR, social policy, or green policy.

But as Father Ted said "It's funny how you become more right wing as you get older." 

badmemory

Current standing charges are 80p per day at present & they are only going to go up.  Just how many people either old or with young children do we actually want to disconnect themselves because if no-one is prepared to do anything before this winter, it will happen.  They will promise no disconnections but what difference will that make.  They will fit one of those meters which as soon as anyone puts any money in it will be gone in standing charges & the cycle will roll again.

QrizB

I see this thread has followed the usual course.

Personally, I think that standing charges should cover the cost of providing and maintaining a supply. Whether this is specific to each house, or is averaged over a street / parish / county / region / nation can be discussed.

I also think that the benefits system - UC, JSA, SP etc - should reflect the cost of living, including energy supply standing charges.

But simply rebalancing costs between the standing charge and unit price will not change the average energy bill.

And if it's decided to remove part or all of the standing charge and instead fund it from general taxation, the cost of living calculation for benefits will need to be revised and benefits reduced commensurately.

matt_drummer

badmemory said:

Current standing charges are 80p per day at present & they are only going to go up.  Just how many people either old or with young children do we actually want to disconnect themselves because if no-one is prepared to do anything before this winter, it will happen.  They will promise no disconnections but what difference will that make.  They will fit one of those meters which as soon as anyone puts any money in it will be gone in standing charges & the cycle will roll again.

Aren't a lot of people given extra money to help with this?

I know it is a difficult subject and I do truly sympathise with people.

But even if some people were given an extra 80p a day do you think they would all use it to pay their energy standing charges?

The problem is not the standing charges, it's the amount of income. They are not the same problem and removing standing charges won't fix the lack of income.