I have no issue about how Ed delivered his speech it was fine, maybe better than fine. My issue is what he set out. Anyone who wants to limit the right to private property, effectively end investment in the energy market and then expects to appeal to a wide spectrum of the electorate is deluded. My guess this will be a true marmite speech.
Sky News switch to Obama speaking at the UN General Assembly.
No disrespect meant to British politicians but Obama's speech is obviously more important that Ed Miliband's. (*)
(*) Although last time I made a point like this about how insignificant Britain and Ed Miliband in particular are in the grand scheme of things the British vote ended up stopping the greatest military-industrial war machine the world has ever known from going to war in the Middle East again, so maybe I'm underestimating them.
Artful
Both Obama and Miliband are dithering intellectuals.
It is just that Obama manages not to sound like one.
I have no issue about how Ed delivered his speech it was fine, maybe better than fine. My issue is what he set out. Anyone who wants to limit the right to private property, effectively end investment in the energy market and then expects to appeal to a wide spectrum of the electorate is deluded. My guess this will be a true marmite speech.
@ShippersUnbound: Miliband verdict: 8 out of 10 for delivery. 2 out of 10 for content
3) I'm not warm on "Britain is better than this" as a theme. It sounds like the cry of a football football fan whose team is 2-0 down with 15 minutes to go.
It's the sort of "sunny uplands" positive aspiration talk that politicians have learnt the voters like.
Don't remember quite as much shrieking from the PB Hodges when Osbrowne announced the State getting involved in house prices with his somewhat eccentric help to buy scheme.
Did he promise to freeze house prices ?
Why would any energy company bother to build any capacity in the Uk ?
Laura Kuenssberg @ITVLauraK 1m SSE first of big 6 to respond to Lab proposal, they say price freezes would lead to 'unsustainable loss making retail businesses'
Nice one Ed, way to cripple our electricity supply....
@benedictbrogan: Strong, fluent, compelling @Ed_Miliband but will voters like price controls, land nationalisation and votes for kids. Populism can bite back
Delivery 7/10 - started like the warm-up act on an open mic night at the Minehead branch of Butlins on a wet Tuesday in February and veered into pantomime on occasion, but got stronger as the speech went on, made very few mistakes and sounded confident, articulate and passionate. He is also undeniably likable.
Effect on the crowd 4/10 - shadow cabinet virtually unmoved (except for Burnham on the topic of the NHS). Harman in particular seemed to be stoicly bearing up and at one point early on Ed Balls managed to directly communicate to viewers at home his astonishment that Ed beat him in the leadership election. Crowd a little subdued for most of it, standing ovations were hard won.
Potential prime minister rating 7/10 - admit it, deep down you are starting to think he looks the part.
Non-policy content 8/10 - strong on this; lots of effective partisan lines, good anecdotes, plenty for supporters to cheer or jeer as appropriate. Accuracy is irrelevant here, its getting the pulse racing that matters and he duly delivered.
Policy content - 4/10 - plenty of policies, which addresses the annual complaint, and a very clear leftish platform that will appeal to lots of people who like the idea of a Government that is on their side. Also plenty in there that the Conservatives wil either have to accept or risk looking like they are siding with vested interests. But some of the policies are clearly fraught with difficulty; land confiscation is a legal minefield and won't work if the reason land is not being built on is that its currently uneconomical to do so; price controls create all sorts of legal and practical problems and knock-on consequences for investment, jobs and long-term supply - that he clearly hasn't considered.
Slogan: "Britain can do better than this". 7/10. not bad - but risks backfiring.
Overall 6/10 - pretty good as conference speeches go, but the policy platform he has set out will be torn to shreds in the coming hours and does nothing to address the concern that he and his shadow cabinet simply don;t understand how business - or money - works. The energy price fixing is a case in point. He might be able to impose fixed prices on energy companies (though will face legal challenges), but can he stop them downsizing the workforce to preserve margins? and what will be the consequence for the investment climate, returns and long-term supply if the companies choose to accept the squeeze on margins?
Blimey, are people really taking this price-freeze proposal seriously?
Truly mind-boggling if so, but if it's a vote-winner I'm happy to suggest a few more in the same vein:
- Everyone to be paid a 'living wage' - Mortgage rates to be capped at 0.5% for ten years - Savings rates to be a minimum 5% a year for ten years - Pensions to double - Petrol price increases to be outlawed - Any company employing more than 100 people to be forced to take on five young people for every 100 existing staff - Private sector rents to be capped at 90% of their 2010 level - Unlimited free child-care for all
That lot should be enough for a Miliband landslide, surely?
Will tractor production increase on your ten year plan comrade?
I must say I thought that was a pretty decent speech. Far from perfect and Ed is not the world's greatest public speaker, but he played to his strengths of using anecdotes in a authentic-sounding way. And frankly there is a decent slew of policies announced including the price freeze which will ensure the headlines are about that and he can't be accused of having been all style.
Now, whether those policies will survive the scrutiny and attacks of the next couple of days remains to be seen.
Blimey, are people really taking this price-freeze proposal seriously?
Truly mind-boggling if so, but if it's a vote-winner I'm happy to suggest a few more in the same vein:
- Everyone to be paid a 'living wage' - Mortgage rates to be capped at 0.5% for ten years - Savings rates to be a minimum 5% a year for ten years - Pensions to double - Petrol price increases to be outlawed - Any company employing more than 100 people to be forced to take on five young people for every 100 existing staff - Private sector rents to be capped at 90% of their 2010 level - Unlimited free child-care for all
That lot should be enough for a Miliband landslide, surely?
Will tractor production increase on your ten year plan comrade?
I missed some of Ed's speech, did he explain why 20 months? Seems a random number? Why not 2 years? Why not 3? Why not real terms freeze for whole of next parliament if we are going down the road of price controls.
I think it's the longest period from the May 2015 election that only covers one winter - allowing the energy companies to get their money back the winter following.
OT, researchers reckon somebody dumped 4 million dollars on (the now sadly deceased) Intrade to make it look like Romney was still in the race. I wonder what can be done to encourage this kind of behaviour.
I have a feeling this will play out badly for the LDs and UKIP.
It is going to turn the GE into a 70s / 80s left vs right battle. It will sure up the Lab core vote but it will also drive people frightened of Lab back to Con.
People will be much more reluctant to waste their vote on LD or UKIP.
I have a feeling this will play out badly for the LDs and UKIP.
It is going to turn the GE into a 70s / 80s left vs right battle. It will sure up the Lab core vote but it will also drive people frightened of Lab back to Con.
People will be much more reluctant to waste their vote on LD or UKIP.
If I were working for an energy company, and was told we had to freeze prices, would I be voting for a party that will legislate against me getting a pay rise, and may result in me losing my job, or shall I vote for the other lot?
Markets have been moved by Ed Miliband's pledge to ban energy price increases for 20 months if is elected. But the changes are minute.
If a Prime Minister were to make this claim in office we'd expect a much harsher drop. So either Miliband's promise isn't seen as credible or his chances aren't that strong.
@benedictbrogan: Strong, fluent, compelling @Ed_Miliband but will voters like price controls, land nationalisation and votes for kids. Populism can bite back
Was land nationalisation in the speech? Newsense™
One good thing about ed's speech,it surely will drive the tories who left for ukip back into the con 2015 vote.
@benedictbrogan: Strong, fluent, compelling @Ed_Miliband but will voters like price controls, land nationalisation and votes for kids. Populism can bite back
Was land nationalisation in the speech? Newsense™
One good thing about ed's speech,it surely will drive the tories who left for ukip back into the con 2015 vote.
"One good thing about ed's speech" Should that start "If you are a Tory"?
Personally I don;t give a damn that Miliband comes out with some re-hashed wilsonite claptrap that would lead us back to 1979. That's his affair.
What concerns me is people might vote for it. And I suspect the slight shrillness of right wing posters here suggests they might.
I'm sure it is going to be very popular...who wouldn't want their energy prices frozen for 20 months and promise of more.
Its classic Brown, sounds good on the surface to anybody who isn't willing to think around the issue (Osborne has tried some of the same tricks as well).
It's not clear whether that is the cost to the energy companies, or whether Miliband intends to hand that money to the energy companies in return for the price freeze - which would leave him looking mighty stupid if there were an exceptionally mild winter and gas prices fell.
Question is will Cammie start to roll out the promises and pledges too? Populist energy price promises may or may not be believed but seemingly never ending austerity is hardly going to enthuse the voters either.
Does this mean Ed Miliband will steal my garden if I don;t build on it?
No, it means if you propose to build, get permission and then do nothing, you'll lose the permission. At present, you can let it drift for 5 years.
An absurd 'media headline' policy that will never be implemented, Nick.
Construction companies will only build when there is reasonable market demand. This means that house prices must be stable or growing and be at a level sufficient to cover costs and profit needs; volume of turnover must match or exceed their planned output.
There is very little any government can do to force a private sector company to build houses at a loss which they cannot then sell.
Current housing sales are running at 28% of 2007 volumes. If Ed wants construction rates to increase he will have to stimulate demand from householders and credit supply from banks. If he does that he will have no need to confiscate land banks, incurring consequent litigation cost, delay and opportunity cost. Construction volumes will return without further effort to a rate in excess of 200,00 per annum.
On energy, Cameron should be bold in his reply next week.
We will see energy prices fall if we move away from the fixation on making massive subsidies available for renewable energy. £100 off everybody'd bills without price controls - just by dismantling Ed Miliband's and Ed Davey's green energy agenda....
You know on reflection having a blank sheet of paper was a pretty cunning plan.
The energy plan is truly bizarre. What on earth makes Ed think that the goverment can control what private companies charge for internationally traded commodities in a free market? Really weird.
I suspect the planning issue will be a damp squib. In a local plan there are targets for the number of houses to be built in an area. When consents are given that is set against those targets. I suspect what we will see is a tightening of the time limits in which the development has to be started failing which those consents will go back into the pot. This happens already. If you have ever seen a development site with the start of one house or part of the road cut that looks kinda quiet that is why.
In the interests of balance, when he referred to vans telling people to go home in areas where their parents and grandparents lived, and said we are better than this I winced. I really hope we have seen the last of that sort of nonsense.
Mr. Mark, I agree that's what Cameron *should* do, but I strongly suspect he won't. Sadly, Cameron is also a greenist.
Mr. Rag, for a chap whose opinions are as neutral as red litmus paper one suspects you're not the chap to have a go at others for a lack of objectivity or excess of spin.
Question is will Cammie start to roll out the promises and pledges too? Populist energy price promises may or may not be believed but seemingly never ending austerity is hardly going to enthuse the voters either.
One recalls that Cameron started this with his pledge that energy companies would be forced to put everyone on the cheapest tariff.
On energy, Cameron should be bold in his reply next week.
We will see energy prices fall if we move away from the fixation on making massive subsidies available for renewable energy. £100 off everybody'd bills without price controls - just by dismantling Ed Miliband's and Ed Davey's green energy agenda....
On energy, Cameron should be bold in his reply next week.
We will see energy prices fall if we move away from the fixation on making massive subsidies available for renewable energy. £100 off everybody'd bills without price controls - just by dismantling Ed Miliband's and Ed Davey's green energy agenda....
Mr Dancer - I am one of only a few fighting back against the lies from the PB Hodge hordes. It's great to see the initial PB Hodge spin of this thread of it is a crap speech changing to, Mr Cameron will will have to counter it, as some things in there will impress the voters. Now, where is that poll Mr Avery LP promised of an imminent crossover from Labour to Conservative lead seeing the conference was "an absolute car crash". Apparently todays speech initially was only a "bike crash" according to Avery LP.
Question is will Cammie start to roll out the promises and pledges too? Populist energy price promises may or may not be believed but seemingly never ending austerity is hardly going to enthuse the voters either.
One recalls that Cameron started this with his pledge that energy companies would be forced to put everyone on the cheapest tariff.
This all lends more support to my theory that both parties are developing their policies based on the idea of focus groups of carefully-selected fuckwits they keep locked up in rooms with copies of the Daily Mail and no sharp objects.
@patrickwintour: Energy companies are now doing their nut. Energy UK "will freeze money to build nuclear and make prospects of energy shortages a reality".
This could be ed's George Osborne 2009 party conference moment,he turned the political terms towards himself and labour.
Or perhaps not.
The immigration/apprenticeship idea unravelled in a matter of hours the other day, the energy price freeze has unravelled before the end of the speech, there is no explanation how you can increase primary school hours without spending any extra money.
This is not a coherent set of policies that can win an election. This is a speech designed to secure his own position for the next week. It is short term thinking from a man struggling to lead.
This will further turn the media narrative against him. Indeed, it is already doing so.
For those that don't remember, this move by Miliband reminds me a bit of the Windfall Tax that Brown came up with prior to 1997 election...who didn't want to tax the energy companies a big wad of cash for the government to use to build stuff...thus it was very popular with the public (but I bet we have all paid for over the past 15 years).
@benedictbrogan: Strong, fluent, compelling @Ed_Miliband but will voters like price controls, land nationalisation and votes for kids. Populism can bite back
Was land nationalisation in the speech? Newsense™
One good thing about ed's speech,it surely will drive the tories who left for ukip back into the con 2015 vote.
Personally I don;t give a damn that Miliband comes out with some re-hashed wilsonite claptrap that would lead us back to 1979. That's his affair.
What concerns me is people might vote for it. And I suspect the slight shrillness of right wing posters here suggests they might.
I'm sure it is going to be very popular...who wouldn't want their energy prices frozen for 20 months and promise of more.
Its classic Brown, sounds good on the surface to anybody who isn't willing to think around the issue (Osborne has tried some of the same tricks as well).
Can't you get your tariff fixed for 18 to 20 months already with some providers, (which is a freeze in effect)?
@benedictbrogan: Strong, fluent, compelling @Ed_Miliband but will voters like price controls, land nationalisation and votes for kids. Populism can bite back
Was land nationalisation in the speech? Newsense™
One good thing about ed's speech,it surely will drive the tories who left for ukip back into the con 2015 vote.
3) I'm not warm on "Britain is better than this" as a theme. It sounds like the cry of a football football fan whose team is 2-0 down with 15 minutes to go.
It's the sort of "sunny uplands" positive aspiration talk that politicians have learnt the voters like.
Markets have been moved by Ed Miliband's pledge to ban energy price increases for 20 months if is elected. But the changes are minute.
If a Prime Minister were to make this claim in office we'd expect a much harsher drop. So either Miliband's promise isn't seen as credible or his chances aren't that strong.
They'll either whack the prices up in 2014, don't believe Mr Miliband will win or will challenge it in court (And think they'll win). One of the three. Probably two out of three.
Question is will Cammie start to roll out the promises and pledges too? Populist energy price promises may or may not be believed but seemingly never ending austerity is hardly going to enthuse the voters either.
One recalls that Cameron started this with his pledge that energy companies would be forced to put everyone on the cheapest tariff.
Good point and possibly a harbinger of things to come at the tory conference since it's inconceivable Cammie won't be trying to dream up some populist policies of his own.
The energy price pledge is going to be all about trust so we'll find out relatively soonish whether it might turn from a promise to an aspiration if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny or little Ed isn't completely committed to it.
The opprobrium of the right wing papers is pretty much a given but if little Ed's own voters don't really believe him on this then he'd be in deep, deep trouble.
"The House of Commons has completed estimates for Labour showing that the cost of the measure will be £4.5bn in the 20 months between May 2015 and January 2017."
and the "BBC Labour says the move will save average households £120 and businesses £1,800 - but cost the energy giants £4.5bn."
Strange wording from the Guardian if that's the cost to energy companies.
This could be ed's George Osborne 2009 party conference moment,he turned the political terms towards himself and labour.
Just hold on there. I have just gone back through this thread and according to the PB Hodges it was "rubbish" "toe curling" "embarrassing" "crowd not lapping it up" "Yawn" "Sheffield Rally 2" "Can't get any worse" "must surely get better".
I hope hope you are not trying to say there was a bit of an agenda going on further down the thread.
@JasonGroves1: Miliband left himself a free hand for reshuffle - hardly any colleagues namechecked. A few tense days ahead for some of them
His problem is that there is no real talent in the party to promote. The Blair/Brown years stopped proper succession planning within the Labour party and so you don't really have an embarrassment of riches to choose from. Indeed much of the PLP could just be summed up as an embarrassment and/or rich (mainly from exploiting the public purse - Ed & Yvette, Harriet and Jack etc etc etc)
Beware things like energy price freezes. I put them in the same category as Tobin taxes, or 50p top rates of tax, or taxing bankers' bonuses or building millions of new homes on brownfields.
All popular sounding policies that governments of all colours would be doing if they a) raised money and b) had no economic downsides.
The fact successive governments haven't put these policies into being suggests they probably don't work.
It has been claimed by those who seem to be informed about the subject that an energy crisis is not far away with our base load capacity, currently fulfilled primarily by coal oil gas and nuclear is diminishing with newbuilds slow off the starting block.
A series of 'ifs'. If Labour win, if Labour impose such a dramatic change to the energy market, and if the prophesies come true about the erosion of baseline energy, then they are going to be in serious trouble.
Even if the energy crisis was going to happen anyway, by engineering such a large change the Government lock stock and barrel is going to be blamed when the lights go out.
I fully expected and still expect GO to produce some kind of bribe for the electorate prior to GE and was reasonably confident that it would work, given an improving economy. It might also have been half affordable.
But EdM has, to use a phrase I detest, jumped the shark here with his energy price controls. He has, pretty much like he did with Syria, sacrificed his principals (in this case for the UK to have adequate electricity at a reasonable price) for personal political gain.
And the danger is that people can't be bothered to work out the catastrophic consequences.
EdM is literally playing with fire; he is despicable.
Presumably if there's a crisis in the middle east in 2016 and world energy prices rocket, that's just tough luck? Utilities go bust, I guess, in the brave new world of Milibandenomics.
"Tonally and in policy terms this was quite simply the most Left-wing speech made by a mainstream party leader in several decades. The key line didn't seem to register in the hall, but I suspect it is going to become a massive story. Those who own land and refuse to build on it, and ignore government orders, will see it stolen for housebuilding. Use it or lose it, he declared. That can only mean the government, or councils, swooping on land they want.
It sounds like a small thing, but it is not. It is philosophically very revealing. Property rights, the idea that outside a time of war or national emergency government cannot simply appropriate what it wants from private individuals who own property or land, are essential in a truly free society. Upend that assumption and in the end the government can do what it likes. It starts with intentions that can be made to sound noble (homes for our children! think of the children!) but, to be blunt, government theft ends in tyranny."
Question is will Cammie start to roll out the promises and pledges too? Populist energy price promises may or may not be believed but seemingly never ending austerity is hardly going to enthuse the voters either.
One recalls that Cameron started this with his pledge that energy companies would be forced to put everyone on the cheapest tariff.
This all lends more support to my theory that both parties are developing their policies based on the idea of focus groups of carefully-selected fuckwits they keep locked up in rooms with copies of the Daily Mail and no sharp objects.
Yes, well, it wouldn't do to be honest and say something like: "We will put up income tax to pay for investment in new energy infrastructure, saving most of the public money as those with the greatest ability to pay contribute most towards this vital national asset." as it's so easy for political opponents to to misrepresent.
Instead we have idiotic pledges with the reality of who ends up paying for it hidden in the small print, in the sure knowledge that most people will not notice.
Is he suggesting that if a builder is given planning permission for an (artificially) scarce resource that he can hold onto it (the planning permission) for 20 years without building on it?
"Tonally and in policy terms this was quite simply the most Left-wing speech made by a mainstream party leader in several decades. The key line didn't seem to register in the hall, but I suspect it is going to become a massive story. Those who own land and refuse to build on it, and ignore government orders, will see it stolen for housebuilding. Use it or lose it, he declared. That can only mean the government, or councils, swooping on land they want.
It sounds like a small thing, but it is not. It is philosophically very revealing. Property rights, the idea that outside a time of war or national emergency government cannot simply appropriate what it wants from private individuals who own property or land, are essential in a truly free society. Upend that assumption and in the end the government can do what it likes. It starts with intentions that can be made to sound noble (homes for our children! think of the children!) but, to be blunt, government theft ends in tyranny."
Personally I'd keep Balls because he is brainy and venomously anti-Tory and would run a tight ship with his ministers as a CoE.
But, if Ed wants shot of him, now is the time. The McBride association has quietened Balls a tad, the polling shows he's unpopular and his removal would provide Miliband with a further opportunity to demonstrate he is a ruthless assassin. Following on from what he did to his brother, his bravery up against Murdoch and his actions (good or bad) over Syria, it would portray him as a very bloody-minded leader.
But I don't think it'll happen. Not enough depth of talent in the Labour ranks.
Tory Zac Goldsmith "The CBI attacks Miliband's plans for small firms. That suggest he might be on to something."
What many on the left fail to realise is that the average owner of a small firm is usually a fairly wealthy individual wheras the average owner of a large listed company is usually somebody quite normal paying into a pension fund hoping to buy a puny annuity out of it when they want to retire (at about 75)
1. All those rich millionaires living on acres of land who have been voting UKIP top punish the Tories had better get the hell back to the Tories before Red steals their land!!!!
2. Price controls on energy WILL be massively (and I mean massively) popular in the opinion polls and Labour can exoect a substantial bounce by the weekend opinion polls.
Whether it's legal or not is another matter, never-mind the chaos it would cause if it was actually implemented - Actually it's almost worth seeing Labour win the election in 2015 so that they have to implement this policy and deal with the fall out, LOL!
We'll say to private developers we can't just sit on land and refuse to build: we’ll give them a very clear message, either use the land or lose the land, that is what the next Labour government will do.
Comments
Both Obama and Miliband are dithering intellectuals.
It is just that Obama manages not to sound like one.
Dear God the Mail has gone errm O_O ?! http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/24/article-2430497-183A326700000578-9_296x445.jpg OOOO_OOOOOO
Why would any energy company bother to build any capacity in the Uk ?
SSE first of big 6 to respond to Lab proposal, they say price freezes would lead to 'unsustainable loss making retail businesses'
Nice one Ed, way to cripple our electricity supply....
Industry group Energy UK says idea would risk jobs and make possibility of blackouts more likely
Better and better..
Was land nationalisation in the speech? Newsense™
Delivery 7/10 - started like the warm-up act on an open mic night at the Minehead branch of Butlins on a wet Tuesday in February and veered into pantomime on occasion, but got stronger as the speech went on, made very few mistakes and sounded confident, articulate and passionate. He is also undeniably likable.
Effect on the crowd 4/10 - shadow cabinet virtually unmoved (except for Burnham on the topic of the NHS). Harman in particular seemed to be stoicly bearing up and at one point early on Ed Balls managed to directly communicate to viewers at home his astonishment that Ed beat him in the leadership election. Crowd a little subdued for most of it, standing ovations were hard won.
Potential prime minister rating 7/10 - admit it, deep down you are starting to think he looks the part.
Non-policy content 8/10 - strong on this; lots of effective partisan lines, good anecdotes, plenty for supporters to cheer or jeer as appropriate. Accuracy is irrelevant here, its getting the pulse racing that matters and he duly delivered.
Policy content - 4/10 - plenty of policies, which addresses the annual complaint, and a very clear leftish platform that will appeal to lots of people who like the idea of a Government that is on their side. Also plenty in there that the Conservatives wil either have to accept or risk looking like they are siding with vested interests. But some of the policies are clearly fraught with difficulty; land confiscation is a legal minefield and won't work if the reason land is not being built on is that its currently uneconomical to do so; price controls create all sorts of legal and practical problems and knock-on consequences for investment, jobs and long-term supply - that he clearly hasn't considered.
Slogan: "Britain can do better than this". 7/10. not bad - but risks backfiring.
Overall 6/10 - pretty good as conference speeches go, but the policy platform he has set out will be torn to shreds in the coming hours and does nothing to address the concern that he and his shadow cabinet simply don;t understand how business - or money - works. The energy price fixing is a case in point. He might be able to impose fixed prices on energy companies (though will face legal challenges), but can he stop them downsizing the workforce to preserve margins? and what will be the consequence for the investment climate, returns and long-term supply if the companies choose to accept the squeeze on margins?
That seems to be what he's saying.
Would it even be lawful under EU law to force the energy companies to freeze prices for 2 years?
Who is going to pay for all the loft insulation for the pensioners and others on welfare that presumably is something that excites socialists?
Now, whether those policies will survive the scrutiny and attacks of the next couple of days remains to be seen.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacobfischler/trader-lost-millions-apparently-trying-to-manipulate-intrade
It is going to turn the GE into a 70s / 80s left vs right battle. It will sure up the Lab core vote but it will also drive people frightened of Lab back to Con.
People will be much more reluctant to waste their vote on LD or UKIP.
Is that going to the power companies? If not, where?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/24/ed-miliband-labour-freeze-prices-2017
Well apart from the staff made redundant from the energy companies, as the look to make savings, due to the energy price freeze.
If a Prime Minister were to make this claim in office we'd expect a much harsher drop. So either Miliband's promise isn't seen as credible or his chances aren't that strong.
http://www.cityam.com/live-blog?utm_source=TD_liveBlog_homepageView&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=TD_liveBlog_homepageView#Market-says-Labour-won't-win-in-2015:-Energy-shares-barely-move-on-price-fix-announcement
Fraser Nelson @frasernelson
Price controls. Reversing NHS reform. Bringing back socialism. Ed Miliband's speech can be summed up in an image...
pic.twitter.com/EPI9mEksSe
The Labour spin doctors had better get working on who to blame for the blackouts, if (god forbid) they were to get elected.
What concerns me is people might vote for it. And I suspect the slight shrillness of right wing posters here suggests they might.
The Conservatives and Lib Dems now have to explain why the policy appears to be both insane and illegal.
Its classic Brown, sounds good on the surface to anybody who isn't willing to think around the issue (Osborne has tried some of the same tricks as well).
Populist energy price promises may or may not be believed but seemingly never ending austerity is hardly going to enthuse the voters either.
Construction companies will only build when there is reasonable market demand. This means that house prices must be stable or growing and be at a level sufficient to cover costs and profit needs; volume of turnover must match or exceed their planned output.
There is very little any government can do to force a private sector company to build houses at a loss which they cannot then sell.
Current housing sales are running at 28% of 2007 volumes. If Ed wants construction rates to increase he will have to stimulate demand from householders and credit supply from banks. If he does that he will have no need to confiscate land banks, incurring consequent litigation cost, delay and opportunity cost. Construction volumes will return without further effort to a rate in excess of 200,00 per annum.
We will see energy prices fall if we move away from the fixation on making massive subsidies available for renewable energy. £100 off everybody'd bills without price controls - just by dismantling Ed Miliband's and Ed Davey's green energy agenda....
The energy plan is truly bizarre. What on earth makes Ed think that the goverment can control what private companies charge for internationally traded commodities in a free market? Really weird.
I suspect the planning issue will be a damp squib. In a local plan there are targets for the number of houses to be built in an area. When consents are given that is set against those targets. I suspect what we will see is a tightening of the time limits in which the development has to be started failing which those consents will go back into the pot. This happens already. If you have ever seen a development site with the start of one house or part of the road cut that looks kinda quiet that is why.
In the interests of balance, when he referred to vans telling people to go home in areas where their parents and grandparents lived, and said we are better than this I winced. I really hope we have seen the last of that sort of nonsense.
Maybe, but both should have seen this coming.
Mr. Rag, for a chap whose opinions are as neutral as red litmus paper one suspects you're not the chap to have a go at others for a lack of objectivity or excess of spin.
I think the energy thing is aimed at lib dems as much as tories. What are they going to say to their constituents on energy prices?
The immigration/apprenticeship idea unravelled in a matter of hours the other day, the energy price freeze has unravelled before the end of the speech, there is no explanation how you can increase primary school hours without spending any extra money.
This is not a coherent set of policies that can win an election. This is a speech designed to secure his own position for the next week. It is short term thinking from a man struggling to lead.
This will further turn the media narrative against him. Indeed, it is already doing so.
Can't you get your tariff fixed for 18 to 20 months already with some providers, (which is a freeze in effect)?
Britain is doing better than this.
Which?, the consumer group in favour of the freeze.
@JasonGroves1: Miliband left himself a free hand for reshuffle - hardly any colleagues namechecked. A few tense days ahead for some of them
Good point and possibly a harbinger of things to come at the tory conference since it's inconceivable Cammie won't be trying to dream up some populist policies of his own.
The energy price pledge is going to be all about trust so we'll find out relatively soonish whether it might turn from a promise to an aspiration if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny or little Ed isn't completely committed to it.
The opprobrium of the right wing papers is pretty much a given but if little Ed's own voters don't really believe him on this then he'd be in deep, deep trouble.
"The House of Commons has completed estimates for Labour showing that the cost of the measure will be £4.5bn in the 20 months between May 2015 and January 2017."
and the "BBC Labour says the move will save average households £120 and businesses £1,800 - but cost the energy giants £4.5bn."
Strange wording from the Guardian if that's the cost to energy companies.
I hope hope you are not trying to say there was a bit of an agenda going on further down the thread.
All popular sounding policies that governments of all colours would be doing if they a) raised money and b) had no economic downsides.
The fact successive governments haven't put these policies into being suggests they probably don't work.
A series of 'ifs'. If Labour win, if Labour impose such a dramatic change to the energy market, and if the prophesies come true about the erosion of baseline energy, then they are going to be in serious trouble.
Even if the energy crisis was going to happen anyway, by engineering such a large change the Government lock stock and barrel is going to be blamed when the lights go out.
I fully expected and still expect GO to produce some kind of bribe for the electorate prior to GE and was reasonably confident that it would work, given an improving economy. It might also have been half affordable.
But EdM has, to use a phrase I detest, jumped the shark here with his energy price controls. He has, pretty much like he did with Syria, sacrificed his principals (in this case for the UK to have adequate electricity at a reasonable price) for personal political gain.
And the danger is that people can't be bothered to work out the catastrophic consequences.
EdM is literally playing with fire; he is despicable.
Love the caption under the pic
And if world energy prices fall...?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100237693/red-ed-is-back-with-a-land-grab/
"Tonally and in policy terms this was quite simply the most Left-wing speech made by a mainstream party leader in several decades. The key line didn't seem to register in the hall, but I suspect it is going to become a massive story. Those who own land and refuse to build on it, and ignore government orders, will see it stolen for housebuilding. Use it or lose it, he declared. That can only mean the government, or councils, swooping on land they want.
It sounds like a small thing, but it is not. It is philosophically very revealing. Property rights, the idea that outside a time of war or national emergency government cannot simply appropriate what it wants from private individuals who own property or land, are essential in a truly free society. Upend that assumption and in the end the government can do what it likes. It starts with intentions that can be made to sound noble (homes for our children! think of the children!) but, to be blunt, government theft ends in tyranny."
Instead we have idiotic pledges with the reality of who ends up paying for it hidden in the small print, in the sure knowledge that most people will not notice.
But, if Ed wants shot of him, now is the time. The McBride association has quietened Balls a tad, the polling shows he's unpopular and his removal would provide Miliband with a further opportunity to demonstrate he is a ruthless assassin. Following on from what he did to his brother, his bravery up against Murdoch and his actions (good or bad) over Syria, it would portray him as a very bloody-minded leader.
But I don't think it'll happen. Not enough depth of talent in the Labour ranks.
We'll say to local authorities that they have a right to grow, and neighbouring local authorities can’t just stop them
Panzers pushing through across the Suffolk/Norfolk borders?
What many on the left fail to realise is that the average owner of a small firm is usually a fairly wealthy individual wheras the average owner of a large listed company is usually somebody quite normal paying into a pension fund hoping to buy a puny annuity out of it when they want to retire (at about 75)
2. Price controls on energy WILL be massively (and I mean massively) popular in the opinion polls and Labour can exoect a substantial bounce by the weekend opinion polls.
Whether it's legal or not is another matter, never-mind the chaos it would cause if it was actually implemented - Actually it's almost worth seeing Labour win the election in 2015 so that they have to implement this policy and deal with the fall out, LOL!
Full text here:
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/85377/ed_milibands_speech_to_labour_conference.html
The relevant passage is:
We'll say to private developers we can't just sit on land and refuse to build: we’ll give them a very clear message, either use the land or lose the land, that is what the next Labour government will do.