Labour moans that there are only 6 energy companies supplying gas and the leccy Well there is only 1 state . So god knows why anybody thinks the state would run anything more efficiently or less corruptly-Just look at the BBC payoffs
Socialism is not what Miliband proposed. Socialism would be about nationalisation of the energy companies . Now that would have been more honest and brave so that when the lights go out or taxes rise Miliband could only blame himself. As it is Labour will not do this but prefer to blame the ills on private companies (and hope not many connect the fact that ownership of these easy targets is by nearly everyone through pension and insurance policies
True: The management of prices, industry and commerce is called 'Corparatism'. In the 'Twenties and 'Thirties people were more open: They just called it Fascism....
Labour want to burden 16 year olds with the vote. Most won't even have taken their GCSEs yet they're being asked to help determine who runs the country.
But they will be old enough to die for their country !
I believe you have to be at least 18 years of age to actually be assigned for combat. You can join before 18 but you are not supposed to fight IIRC.
@tim: Still nothing on the deficit, though. Everything he proposed is either barmy, or just chaff to distract from the lack of policy on the public finances, or both. Might be quite effective, at least in the short term, but where are those 'difficult decisions' ?
*thats not a Dave style "I get it" which means "Oh God I've got to go home and tell her indoors she can't have her missile strikes, must get some flowers at the BP garage on the way home"
Every. Single. Thread. You must be Derek Draper.
Have you found any evidence for this yet? Or should you stfu?
@tim: Still nothing on the deficit, though. Everything he proposed is either barmy, or just chaff to distract from the lack of policy on the public finances, or both. Might be quite effective, at least in the short term, but where are those 'difficult decisions' ?
The number of students being accepted at UK universities rose slightly this year compared with last year.
Data from the admissions service, Ucas, shows 445,820 UK and European Union students had been accepted on to degree courses 28 days after A-level results.
This is up from 408,480 at the same point last year, but slightly down on 2011, the final year before tuition fees rose, when the figure was 465,070.
Interesting definition of "slightly", but we are basically at the stage before big increase in tuition fees. I would love my wages to raise at that "slight" rate every year.
And, for UK or English Unis, if we can count that accurately, how do the percentages stack up? How many 18 year olds were there in each year? How many came back from gap years, or, last year more likely didn't go. Crude figures mean very little.
Labour want to burden 16 year olds with the vote. Most won't even have taken their GCSEs yet they're being asked to help determine who runs the country.
But they will be old enough to die for their country !
I believe you have to be at least 18 years of age to actually be assigned for combat. You can join before 18 but you are not supposed to fight IIRC.
I think there are bodies floating in the Jordan River, as well.
(A strangely optimistic song, I think, in retrospect, given we're still here.)
I'd like to pose a question. "To what extent have your feelings about EdM as the next PM changed?"
Now, I may be allowing my views to override my thinking, but I certainly have become less happy at the prospect. It's only a marginal thing, given I'd never vote Labour anyway, but nevertheless the drift is there. To put this into perspective I'd prefer to have 100 years of EdM than a single day of Gordo. (Incidentally the fact that EdM and most of the Labour front bench stood up for that most ghastly of men should in any case preclude them from any post)
Anyway the basic question is EdM=PM?, and it doesn't ring true. The next PM may turn out to be a 100/1 shot. Anyone spotted any runners?
I'd like to pose a question. "To what extent have your feelings about EdM as the next PM changed?"
Now, I may be allowing my views to override my thinking, but I certainly have become less happy at the prospect. It's only a marginal thing, given I'd never vote Labour anyway, but nevertheless the drift is there. To put this into perspective I'd prefer to have 100 years of EdM than a single day of Gordo. (Incidentally the fact that EdM and most of the Labour front bench stood up for that most ghastly of men should in any case preclude them from any post)
Anyway the basic question is EdM=PM?, and it doesn't ring true. The next PM may turn out to be a 100/1 shot. Anyone spotted any runners?
I'll wait till Christmas on this one, I think, including the Tory Conference.
I'd like to pose a question. "To what extent have your feelings about EdM as the next PM changed?"
Now, I may be allowing my views to override my thinking, but I certainly have become less happy at the prospect. It's only a marginal thing, given I'd never vote Labour anyway, but nevertheless the drift is there. To put this into perspective I'd prefer to have 100 years of EdM than a single day of Gordo. (Incidentally the fact that EdM and most of the Labour front bench stood up for that most ghastly of men should in any case preclude them from any post)
Anyway the basic question is EdM=PM?, and it doesn't ring true. The next PM may turn out to be a 100/1 shot. Anyone spotted any runners?
I suspect if you are balanced by Labour supporters becoming even slightly more likely to turn out, Ed will be happy.
Labour on the living wage is interesting in part because they set up the Low Pay Commission which supposedly sets the National Minimum Wage at the optimium level. Part of its brief is to see whether a high national minimum wage would be feasible. I believe they've also considered special London rates as well. So it's fair enough if you think they've done their job wrong, but it may well prove difficult to do so without recognising that fact.
I'd like to pose a question. "To what extent have your feelings about EdM as the next PM changed?"
Now, I may be allowing my views to override my thinking, but I certainly have become less happy at the prospect. It's only a marginal thing, given I'd never vote Labour anyway, but nevertheless the drift is there. To put this into perspective I'd prefer to have 100 years of EdM than a single day of Gordo. (Incidentally the fact that EdM and most of the Labour front bench stood up for that most ghastly of men should in any case preclude them from any post)
Anyway the basic question is EdM=PM?, and it doesn't ring true. The next PM may turn out to be a 100/1 shot. Anyone spotted any runners?
Ed Miliband is not a huge problem for me as PM (he seems reasonably intelligent and practical) ,its Labour in general , they are seriously lacking in people who can run the country and have far too many people who rely on emotion not practicality. They have a vicious streak which seeks to ban anything they do not approve of (even more than the tories or lib dems). If only we had a more 'liberal' party .
Have you found any evidence for this yet? Or should you stfu?
It's straight from the Red Ed playbook
Friends: this is my message. If you want to give your banal thoughts impact, say them again and again. Say them again – and again. Again and again, your voice rising, your voice rising until you’re shouting, shouting above the cheers of your audience, your audience cheering in acclaim, acclaim for your banal thoughts, your banal thoughts with the word “Britain” in them, your banal thoughts.
SWIFT have released their latest forecasts for UK GDP growth. As you will know from previous posts, the SWIFT GDP Index has been amongst the most accurate of all forecasters. It's last 'nowcast' for Q2 2013 was 0.7, 0.1 above ONS's first estimate but bang on for its second.
Here are both August's (already posted) and this September's estimates:
July Estimate (released August)
UK GDP Growth estimated Period QoQ% YoY% Nowcast Q3 2013 0.5% 1.0% Forecast Q4 2013 0.4% 1.7%
August Estimate (released September)
UK GDP Growth estimated Period QoQ% YoY% Nowcast Q3 2013 0.8% 1.4% Forecast Q4 2013 0.5% 2.3%
You will note that SWIFT is confirming the general consensus that growth in the UK is accelerating. Their 'nowcast' for Q3 2013 moves up from 0.5% to 0.8% and its forecast for Q4 shows a smaller uptick from 0.4% to 0.5%.
There will be one more SWIFT Index released before ONS give their first estimate of Q3 GDP next month. SWIFT's model inputs more ONS data for its last of three nowcasts and there can therefore be quite large movements in their final estimate. For example the penultimate nowcast for Q2 was only 0.1 in May before being revised up to 0.7 in June.
For comparison with the other Indices published by SWIFT the nowcast for Q3 and Q4 Quarter-on-[Previous]Quarter growth is:
Q3 Q4 QoQ% QoQ% Nowcast Forecast OECD Average 0.4% 0.4% EU 27 Average 0.3% 0.3% United States 0.6% 0.5% United Kingdom 0.8% 0.5% Germany 0.5% 0.4%
@tim: Still nothing on the deficit, though. Everything he proposed is either barmy, or just chaff to distract from the lack of policy on the public finances, or both. Might be quite effective, at least in the short term, but where are those 'difficult decisions' ?
Housebuilding is key to getting the deficit down And a living wage is the other plank
You can't understand why Tories always increase benefit spending because you are addicted to the taxpayer subsidising low pay and high rents. But the 1979-2015 consensus on that has to be broken
If Labour propose house building and it leads to less government spending on housing, they'll just spend even more money somewhere else. They still believe the more they spend the richer everyone gets.
By commencing a development you would normally preserve the planning consent. You could then reinforce that by applying for a 'Certificate of Lawfulness for Existing Use or Development'. In this way developers normally keep a planning consent valid. Whether it would work to prevent Miliband's land theft depends on the details, of course.
I'd like to pose a question. "To what extent have your feelings about EdM as the next PM changed?"
Now, I may be allowing my views to override my thinking, but I certainly have become less happy at the prospect. It's only a marginal thing, given I'd never vote Labour anyway, but nevertheless the drift is there. To put this into perspective I'd prefer to have 100 years of EdM than a single day of Gordo. (Incidentally the fact that EdM and most of the Labour front bench stood up for that most ghastly of men should in any case preclude them from any post)
Anyway the basic question is EdM=PM?, and it doesn't ring true. The next PM may turn out to be a 100/1 shot. Anyone spotted any runners?
I suspect if you are balanced by Labour supporters becoming even slightly more likely to turn out, Ed will be happy.
Miliband's Bennite/Militant speech will have put the frighteners on LibDem waverers. Today is a black day for Labour.
Toby Young takes a break from keeping poor kids out of Tobeschool
"...Of our first 120 pupils ... 23.5 percent were on free school meals. In our second cohort, the one we’ve just admitted, 28 percent are on free school meals. That’s the borough average for state secondary schools in Hammersmith and Fulham."
I would replace the "could" with "will"...even though you are told time and time again, no such thing as a free lunch, the vast majority of people just can't refuse.
Tax on bank, well its not me....tax on energy companies, well its not me...tax on mansions, well its not me...
Toby Young takes a break from keeping poor kids out of Tobeschool
"...Of our first 120 pupils ... 23.5 percent were on free school meals. In our second cohort, the one we’ve just admitted, 28 percent are on free school meals. That’s the borough average for state secondary schools in Hammersmith and Fulham."
Yes Labour have an awful problem in their MPs. The Tories did too in 2001, but their failure to get elected then and subsequently did them a favour in that they now have a wide and talented pool to draw from (Labour had this effect in 1997 too).
If you look around parliament though and search for someone of sufficient talent to be put in charge of the country's money. (aka Your money and my money) then it's a bit of a no-brainer. None of them! The best candidate as far as I can make it out is EdBalls - lots of wise economic education there.. and yet he seems to be an economic dunce. GO on the other hand would appear to be a no-hoper and yet there's some credibility in his actions.
(At this point anyone that mentions Rachel Reeves, or Vince Cable simply mistakes their low-level experience for something better.)
So, really, it's over to the next guy... whoever he may be.
Wow. The trader in question lost $6.9m in total. The conclusion that manipulation was the most likely explanation (rather than speculation or hedging) is pretty convincing.
Toby Young takes a break from keeping poor kids out of Tobeschool
"...Of our first 120 pupils ... 23.5 percent were on free school meals. In our second cohort, the one we’ve just admitted, 28 percent are on free school meals. That’s the borough average for state secondary schools in Hammersmith and Fulham."
It's all about location, isn't it? If the other schools are in more affluent parts of the borough then they are going to have a lower uptake of free school meals.
We Conservatives ned to be very careful that there is not a knee jerk reaction to what Miliband had to say on energy prices. Whilst I happento think the freeze will do more harm than good, his basic point about bringing some more competition into the energy market place is something which should be embraced by us Tories. The fact is that if we believe that the competition which the market provides actually brings lower prices then anything sensible which improves the market to genuinely function seems a very good idea. It is in fact part of a very old conservative philosophy going back to Edmund Burke that Conservatives ought to take on the vested interests wherever they fail the citizen.These days I only know of one prominent Conservative who articulates what Burke so rightly said - and he's Jesse Norman. Incidentally he'sthe guy whoI as a Party member would vote to replace DC when the latter eventually stands down. Meanwhile, I just hope my lot deal with the Milband speech in an intelligent way and actually in line with genuine conservative philospohy embrace what was good about it.
I would replace the "could" with "will"...even though you are told time and time again, no such thing as a free lunch, the vast majority of people just can't refuse.
Tax on bank, well its not me....tax on energy companies, well its not me...tax on mansions, well its not me...
Exactly. So the Tories/LibDems need to explain how it does affect people. And how they are going to help people who are finding it difficult to pay for energy and find energy companies bloody annoying, as even I - and I'm relatively better off - do. Tweeting Npower press releases is not, as Tim says, the way to look as if you're on the side of those worried about how to heat their homes.
I have to admit I would like to see the energy freeze work if Ed Miliband gets into power.
Around areas like mine there is a belief - and this is probably mirrored in most parts of the country - that most politicians are the same, big business has them and us by the balls, and no matter who gets elected nothing will ever change. This belief isn't true of course; there are subtle differences, but the rise of UKIP is demonstrative of the agitation out there among ordinary people.
So if Ed Miliband got in, took the energy companies on and made it happen, I'd be impressed.
I'd be impressed because, statist though probably is, I can't remember a leader since Thatcher so willing to take on the big players and actually change big things. And let's remember, many traditional Tories thought Thatcher would fall flat on her face against the unions and the socialist consensus. Ed Miliband is obviously trying to shift things the other way and it may well all come crumbling down. But kudos for trying, and no little hope that he succeeds, because there are an awful lot of people out there - including me - who feel that the world could be a little fairer, if only those at the top, in business, politics and suchlike, just tried a little harder.
And I'm no Labour man. Not after the Brown years. Not by a long chalk.
I would replace the "could" with "will"...even though you are told time and time again, no such thing as a free lunch, the vast majority of people just can't refuse.
Tax on bank, well its not me....tax on energy companies, well its not me...tax on mansions, well its not me...
That could be a good thing. If it's popular, then the Conservatives will have to come up with a counter offer. That must surely be repealing all the green taxes/subsidies that inflate utility bills.
@peterbuss - very good post. I think Miliband is quite good at highlighting problems, less so on the response. But Conservatives must tackle vested interests working against the citizen where they can.
I should also say I liked Miliband's focus on mental health and the importance of having trade unionists in a political party. These are two issues the Conservatives should also focus on more too.
Miliband's Bennite/Militant speech will have put the frighteners on LibDem waverers. Today is a black day for Labour.
Nearly all the LibDem waverers that I know consider themselves to be left of Labour. That's why they don't like coalition with the Tories. It's a fantasy of both the other parties to think that the typical Libdem voter is somewhere halfway between us.
(That said, LibDems vary, and in places like Liverpool they include tactical Tories.)
Energy prices going through the roof cos of Labour's carbon nonsense. Cameroons copied the same nonsense to prove how Guardianista they were and now they're going to be hoist on Ed's petard over it - funny in a way.
Toby Young takes a break from keeping poor kids out of Tobeschool
"...Of our first 120 pupils ... 23.5 percent were on free school meals. In our second cohort, the one we’ve just admitted, 28 percent are on free school meals. That’s the borough average for state secondary schools in Hammersmith and Fulham."
It's all about location, isn't it? If the other schools are in more affluent parts of the borough then they are going to have a lower uptake of free school meals.
If (i've no idea either way) the school does under index in children from poorer backgrounds, it's not difficult to see that middle class parents are far more likely to actively seek out this sort of school and stick it at 1st pref. I'd be amazed if their intake was markedly out of line with their application profile.
I have to admit I would like to see the energy freeze work if Ed Miliband gets into power.
Around areas like mine there is a belief - and this is probably mirrored in most parts of the country - that most politicians are the same, big business has them and us by the balls, and no matter who gets elected nothing will ever change. This belief isn't true of course; there are subtle differences, but the rise of UKIP is demonstrative of the agitation out there among ordinary people.
So if Ed Miliband got in, took the energy companies on and made it happen, I'd be impressed.
I'd be impressed because, statist though probably is, I can't remember a leader since Thatcher so willing to take on the big players and actually change big things. And let's remember, many traditional Tories thought Thatcher would fall flat on her face against the unions and the socialist consensus. Ed Miliband is obviously trying to shift things the other way and it may well all come crumbling down. But kudos for trying, and no little hope that he succeeds, because there are an awful lot of people out there - including me - who feel that the world could be a little fairer, if only those at the top, in business, politics and suchlike, just tried a little harder.
And I'm no Labour man. Not after the Brown years. Not by a long chalk.
Fenster: good post. Like you I'm not Labour but I do think that both parties have been far too unwilling to do what's necessary to be on the side of the ordinary person. I feel sometimes as if I'm the only person (mug, more like) paying tax at the published rate in this country, what with everyone else's tax scams. I bet I'm not the only one feeling like that. I've spent money insulating my house precisely in order to save on energy because of the eye-watering increases over the last few years.
Price freezes are probably not the answer (though Labour are only copying what Osborne did over a council tax freeze) but the Tories have done the square root of sod all about getting new energy supplies on tap.
JamesM Thanks very much. Its true that I am a Conservative party member, but I hope that doesn't stop me seeing the good in other Parties. At times PBetting is far too tribal for me and we seem mostly to shout but not listen to each other. Anyway your post was top rate .
My first thought is: how the hell is that going to work?
What's the point of having a competitive marketplace & regulatory structure if you're just going to freeze the damn prices anyway? I take it the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab if the wholesale price goes above the 'official' price?
EXCITED Britons have been rushing to see their favourite Labour politicians at the party conference in Brighton.
The seaside town has taken on a festival atmosphere after thousands of conference fans descended for four days of speeches, seminars and mayhem. Office worker Tom Logan said: “The vibe on the train getting here was amazing.
My first thought is: how the hell is that going to work?
What's the point of having a competitive marketplace & regulatory structure if you're just going to freeze the damn prices anyway? I take it the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab if the wholesale price goes above the 'official' price?
Miliband's Bennite/Militant speech will have put the frighteners on LibDem waverers. Today is a black day for Labour.
Nearly all the LibDem waverers that I know consider themselves to be left of Labour. That's why they don't like coalition with the Tories. It's a fantasy of both the other parties to think that the typical Libdem voter is somewhere halfway between us.
(That said, LibDems vary, and in places like Liverpool they include tactical Tories.)
Isn't that also a fantasy of much of the LD leadership, not just the big two believing most of its membership is between the other two, rather than much of it being to the left of Labour?
The energy price freeze is obviously very dangerous for Cameron.
I think Cameron's best response is to say it's a wild spending commitment that will have to be financed by more taxation and / or more borrowing.
Of course technically it isn't Government spending but Cameron should just say money doesn't grow on trees , the money will have to come from somewhere, and the "only possible answer" is that it will ultimately come from the taxpayer.
Remember surveys show that very few people have much understanding of who does what, what government does, who decides what etc etc. People on here may think it's all obvious but the public isn't connected with these things. Which is why Cameron will be able to get away with my suggested line of attack.
I would replace the "could" with "will"...even though you are told time and time again, no such thing as a free lunch, the vast majority of people just can't refuse.
Tax on bank, well its not me....tax on energy companies, well its not me...tax on mansions, well its not me...
I think many people will be inclined to view a freeze on energy prices favourably not only because, obviously, it saves them money, but because they have no conception that the rise in energy prices over recent years has been reasonable.
An example would be continual increases and being told rises are due to investment in future infrastructure or oil prices or something along those lines which would affect their particular market, but then they also announce record profits, which certainly looks like the rise is therefore not down to meeting rising costs as their margins have gotten better.
I'm sure there is an explanation for how that is not sticking it to the consumer (I'm sure someone has provided me with an answer on here before), but it certainly lools like the energy companies therefore have no reason to increase prices so much, making a freeze look both attractive and reasonable.
The energy price freeze is obviously very dangerous for Cameron.
I think Cameron's best response is to say it's a wild spending commitment that will have to be financed by more taxation and / or more borrowing.
Of course technically it isn't Government spending but Cameron should just say money doesn't grow on trees , the money will have to come from somewhere, and the "only possible answer" is that it will ultimately come from the taxpayer.
Remember surveys show that very few people have much understanding of who does what, what government does, who decides what etc etc. People on here may think it's all obvious but the public isn't connected with these things. Which is why Cameron will be able to get away with my suggested line of attack.
I see the Radicalised Right are already running scared re. energy prices
Ed has rattled my fellow tories.
Of that there is no doubt.
If this takes hold in the public imagination, which it probably will, the Tories have 3 options.
1) Try to rubbish the policy, taking the side of the energy companies.
2) Come out with a watered down version of their own.
3) Outflank Labour by promising, say, a 5 year freeze.
None are going to be particularly attractive for them.
It's very good politics by Ed Miliband.
The energy price cap is not a big deal. The Tories would be well advised to play it down. Train fares are capped. No rubicon has been crossed. Blair had his utilities tax. It's not the first time.
The Tories' attack on Labour is presumably going to be straightforward: their sums don't add up and their only proposals are ones that failed in the 70s. Their attack will be on the believability of the policies, not the policies themselves.
MrJones, if energy prices were solely due to carbon nonsense, as you say, would you like to explain why our electricity prices are lower than in Australia?
One of the problems with the Right seems to be the idea that "business needs to make a profit".
No it doesn't. Only efficient businesses should make a profit.
I will believe the power market is competitive when I see PowerGen or British Gas bankrupted because they are unable to compete with their competitors.
One problem is that we seem to be funding investment in power by allowing energy companies to make monopoly profits. The problem is that only some of this goes into investment, the rest will go into the shareholders, employees' and directors' pockets.
Fascinating speech by Ed. The Mugabe land seizure stuff was great as was the 1970s pricing policy - sent me back to the days of Barbara Castle and Sunny Jim!
The Tories' attack on Labour is presumably going to be straightforward: their sums don't add up and their only proposals are ones that failed in the 70s. Their attack will be on the believability of the policies, not the policies themselves.
But then they're forced on to the territory. And when asked what they would do about energy prices, what do they say?
Con line should be Ed will freeze the price and your family when power is rationed.
I don't think most people believe we will get to a point of rationing, so that scare tactic wouldn't work (even if it is something that is a possibility) as it isn't credible to the audience, and so looks like hyperbole, like how strong Labour has criticised the bedroom tax (I know, I know, spare room subsidy) - they went too big on how bad it was, so any legitimate criticism seems less I believe.
Fascinating speech by Ed. The Mugabe land seizure stuff was great as was the 1970s pricing policy - sent me back to the days of Barbara Castle and Sunny Jim!
The Tories' attack on Labour is presumably going to be straightforward: their sums don't add up and their only proposals are ones that failed in the 70s. Their attack will be on the believability of the policies, not the policies themselves.
But then they're forced on to the territory. And when asked what they would do about energy prices, what do they say?
What's the chances of one of the large energy companies announcing that they are cancelling some investment in new plant because of this uncertainty? Let's face these are not nice people, even Damien McBride would think that.
It seems all too likely that by tomorrow this will have gone (a) into an argument about the safety of our supplies or (b) into an argument about how much of our bills are currently made up of the green tariffs imposed by Ed whilst SoS.
I'd like to pose a question. "To what extent have your feelings about EdM as the next PM changed?"
Now, I may be allowing my views to override my thinking, but I certainly have become less happy at the prospect. It's only a marginal thing, given I'd never vote Labour anyway, but nevertheless the drift is there. To put this into perspective I'd prefer to have 100 years of EdM than a single day of Gordo. (Incidentally the fact that EdM and most of the Labour front bench stood up for that most ghastly of men should in any case preclude them from any post)
Anyway the basic question is EdM=PM?, and it doesn't ring true. The next PM may turn out to be a 100/1 shot. Anyone spotted any runners?
I suspect if you are balanced by Labour supporters becoming even slightly more likely to turn out, Ed will be happy.
Miliband's Bennite/Militant speech will have put the frighteners on LibDem waverers. Today is a black day for Labour.
No it doesn't. Not here, anyway. More, not less, likely to switch.
I have to admit I would like to see the energy freeze work if Ed Miliband gets into power.
Around areas like mine there is a belief - and this is probably mirrored in most parts of the country - that most politicians are the same, big business has them and us by the balls, and no matter who gets elected nothing will ever change. This belief isn't true of course; there are subtle differences, but the rise of UKIP is demonstrative of the agitation out there among ordinary people.
So if Ed Miliband got in, took the energy companies on and made it happen, I'd be impressed.
I'd be impressed because, statist though probably is, I can't remember a leader since Thatcher so willing to take on the big players and actually change big things. And let's remember, many traditional Tories thought Thatcher would fall flat on her face against the unions and the socialist consensus. Ed Miliband is obviously trying to shift things the other way and it may well all come crumbling down. But kudos for trying, and no little hope that he succeeds, because there are an awful lot of people out there - including me - who feel that the world could be a little fairer, if only those at the top, in business, politics and suchlike, just tried a little harder.
And I'm no Labour man. Not after the Brown years. Not by a long chalk.
Fenster that is an excellent post. I know you are no Labour man but that belief you mention at the top of your post , goes far and wide. It is worth trawling past hundreds of re heated tweets , to get to a genuine thoughtful, makes you think comment. Maybe, just maybe, the agitation felt by ordinary people that they do get shafted, and there is nothing they can do about it,might bring a reaction eventually in how politics is conducted, especially the concentration of just a few priviledged voters in marginal seats.
I think it's unlikely that the energy companies will introduce rationing to begin with. They'll probably just lay off staff at first, but that could result in a deterioration of service and we'll end up sitting in the dark wrapped in blankets anyway. Ed needs to ensure he doesn't get blamed for this.
I have to admit I would like to see the energy freeze work if Ed Miliband gets into power.
Around areas like mine there is a belief - and this is probably mirrored in most parts of the country - that most politicians are the same, big business has them and us by the balls, and no matter who gets elected nothing will ever change. This belief isn't true of course; there are subtle differences, but the rise of UKIP is demonstrative of the agitation out there among ordinary people.
So if Ed Miliband got in, took the energy companies on and made it happen, I'd be impressed.
I'd be impressed because, statist though probably is, I can't remember a leader since Thatcher so willing to take on the big players and actually change big things. And let's remember, many traditional Tories thought Thatcher would fall flat on her face against the unions and the socialist consensus. Ed Miliband is obviously trying to shift things the other way and it may well all come crumbling down. But kudos for trying, and no little hope that he succeeds, because there are an awful lot of people out there - including me - who feel that the world could be a little fairer, if only those at the top, in business, politics and suchlike, just tried a little harder.
And I'm no Labour man. Not after the Brown years. Not by a long chalk.
Fenster that is an excellent post. I know you are no Labour man but that belief you mention at the top of your post , goes far and wide. It is worth trawling past hundreds of re heated tweets , to get to a genuine thoughtful, makes you think comment. Maybe, just maybe, the agitation felt by ordinary people that they do get shafted, and there is nothing they can do about it,might bring a reaction eventually in how politics is conducted, especially the concentration of just a few priviledged voters in marginal seats.
"Alistair Phillips-Davies, chief executive of SSE, called on the Labour Party to transfer the costs of energy subsidies policies to general taxation, rather than paying for them on energy bills. "This would wipe £110 off the average person's bill and shift the cost away from those who cant afford to pay and on to those who can," he said."
The Tories' attack on Labour is presumably going to be straightforward: their sums don't add up and their only proposals are ones that failed in the 70s. Their attack will be on the believability of the policies, not the policies themselves.
Of course it's all going to be about believability as will every other pledge and promise made by little Ed Clegg or Cammie since the election will inevitably boil down to trust as it usually does.
"Alistair Phillips-Davies, chief executive of SSE, called on the Labour Party to transfer the costs of energy subsidies policies to general taxation, rather than paying for them on energy bills. "This would wipe £110 off the average person's bill and shift the cost away from those who cant afford to pay and on to those who can," he said."
"The British Gas owner, which made £1.4bn profits after tax last year, has repeatedly warned of rising costs of policies and is expected to rise prices by up to 8pc in coming weeks. "
Fascinating speech by Ed. The Mugabe land seizure stuff was great as was the 1970s pricing policy - sent me back to the days of Barbara Castle and Sunny Jim!
The right have gone stark staring mad.
You know Jonathan I think you're spot on. Ed gave a speech which was polished in style and weak on content, this time next week everyone will have forgotten it. It simply points to us being in a phoney war phase where conferences have to be filled with sweet nothings. If the conferences have one point in common ( and next week Tory one will be the same ) it's the complete lack of ideas on what to do to get the country back on its feet. It's actually worse than that, it's ignoring the big elephant in the room saying we're deep in the brown stuff and pretending that shuffling the odd billion on voters bribes is going to make things all right again. The parties have a year to do something solid, but on current performance they'll fluff it.
The Tories' attack on Labour is presumably going to be straightforward: their sums don't add up and their only proposals are ones that failed in the 70s. Their attack will be on the believability of the policies, not the policies themselves.
Of course it's all going to be about believability as will every other pledge and promise made by little Ed Clegg or Cammie since the election will inevitably boil down to trust as it usually does.
The Tories' attack on Labour is presumably going to be straightforward: their sums don't add up and their only proposals are ones that failed in the 70s. Their attack will be on the believability of the policies, not the policies themselves.
But then they're forced on to the territory. And when asked what they would do about energy prices, what do they say?
They'll say that Ed Miliband promises moonbeams and cucumbers without thinking of the consequences, which is what got the country into a mess in the first place.
My current thinking is that Ed Miliband has done OK today, but that OK probably isn't enough. A man whose top attribute is "out of his depth" needs to make only credible promises. He hasn't demonstrated that any of his promises are credible, never mind all of them.
Fascinating speech by Ed. The Mugabe land seizure stuff was great as was the 1970s pricing policy - sent me back to the days of Barbara Castle and Sunny Jim!
The right have gone stark staring mad.
You know Jonathan I think you're spot on. Ed gave a speech which was polished in style and weak on content, this time next week everyone will have forgotten it. It simply points to us being in a phoney war phase where conferences have to be filled with sweet nothings. If the conferences have one point in common ( and next week Tory one will be the same ) it's the complete lack of ideas on what to do to get the country back on its feet. It's actually worse than that, it's ignoring the big elephant in the room saying we're deep in the brown stuff and pretending that shuffling the odd billion on voters bribes is going to make things all right again. The parties have a year to do something solid, but on current performance they'll fluff it.
Worringly, you may well be right. So much froth proposed, so much is just presentational.
On the conferences so far, without delving in too deep the Labour one seemed less intense to me, although that may just be because I've generally been warier of Labour and the LDs showing some confidence is noteworthy as a being big change, but neither has been a disaster. Cameron had best be careful - he seems the type who can mess up with an open goal in front of him (and better when his back is against the wall, if I may mix metaphors), and all he has to do is not screw up and be workman like as the others were, but he could overthink it.
"Alistair Phillips-Davies, chief executive of SSE, called on the Labour Party to transfer the costs of energy subsidies policies to general taxation, rather than paying for them on energy bills. "This would wipe £110 off the average person's bill and shift the cost away from those who cant afford to pay and on to those who can," he said."
"The British Gas owner, which made £1.4bn profits after tax last year, has repeatedly warned of rising costs of policies and is expected to rise prices by up to 8pc in coming weeks. "
"The British Gas Owner" doesn't just do business in Britain.
The Tories' attack on Labour is presumably going to be straightforward: their sums don't add up and their only proposals are ones that failed in the 70s. Their attack will be on the believability of the policies, not the policies themselves.
Indeed.
It's also worth remembering that trust in all politicians is very, very low.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the majority of people don't actually believe Labour would freeze energy prices (or would be able to do so).
Many people will be remembering tuition fees. The fact that was the Lib Dems makes no difference - because trust in everyone is very low.
The Tories' attack on Labour is presumably going to be straightforward: their sums don't add up and their only proposals are ones that failed in the 70s. Their attack will be on the believability of the policies, not the policies themselves.
Of course it's all going to be about believability as will every other pledge and promise made by little Ed Clegg or Cammie since the election will inevitably boil down to trust as it usually does.
Only we don't trust any of them. Magic 8 ball?
Rather than pretend to speak for all voters there's plenty of polling on the subject you could have a look at. It's quite revealing and unsurprisingly shows that there are varying trust levels associated with different leaders and on different policy areas.
Those levels are indeed pretty damn low so little Ed's biggest problem is that he's promising this at a time when his own polling is at one of it's lowest ebbs. That won't be the only factor but it's going to matter hugely and he'll have to start turning it around. Same with the others and their election pledges.
"Alistair Phillips-Davies, chief executive of SSE, called on the Labour Party to transfer the costs of energy subsidies policies to general taxation, rather than paying for them on energy bills. "This would wipe £110 off the average person's bill and shift the cost away from those who cant afford to pay and on to those who can," he said."
"The British Gas owner, which made £1.4bn profits after tax last year, has repeatedly warned of rising costs of policies and is expected to rise prices by up to 8pc in coming weeks. "
"The British Gas Owner" doesn't just do business in Britain.
I would imagine that the real 'British Gas Owners' are the pension funds and those saving into them.
Comments
Have you found any evidence for this yet? Or should you stfu?
Unless you're the DM, I suppose. And innumerate!
I think there are bodies floating in the Jordan River, as well.
(A strangely optimistic song, I think, in retrospect, given we're still here.)
Now, I may be allowing my views to override my thinking, but I certainly have become less happy at the prospect. It's only a marginal thing, given I'd never vote Labour anyway, but nevertheless the drift is there.
To put this into perspective I'd prefer to have 100 years of EdM than a single day of Gordo. (Incidentally the fact that EdM and most of the Labour front bench stood up for that most ghastly of men should in any case preclude them from any post)
Anyway the basic question is EdM=PM?, and it doesn't ring true. The next PM may turn out to be a 100/1 shot. Anyone spotted any runners?
It's a bit like saying plumbing is the key to world peace.
SWIFT have released their latest forecasts for UK GDP growth. As you will know from previous posts, the SWIFT GDP Index has been amongst the most accurate of all forecasters. It's last 'nowcast' for Q2 2013 was 0.7, 0.1 above ONS's first estimate but bang on for its second.
Here are both August's (already posted) and this September's estimates:
July Estimate (released August) August Estimate (released September) You will note that SWIFT is confirming the general consensus that growth in the UK is accelerating. Their 'nowcast' for Q3 2013 moves up from 0.5% to 0.8% and its forecast for Q4 shows a smaller uptick from 0.4% to 0.5%.
There will be one more SWIFT Index released before ONS give their first estimate of Q3 GDP next month. SWIFT's model inputs more ONS data for its last of three nowcasts and there can therefore be quite large movements in their final estimate. For example the penultimate nowcast for Q2 was only 0.1 in May before being revised up to 0.7 in June.
For comparison with the other Indices published by SWIFT the nowcast for Q3 and Q4 Quarter-on-[Previous]Quarter growth is: Need I say more?
No chance they'll cut spending. Ever.
@JoeWatts
SadiqK says London has to talk about rent control.
By commencing a development you would normally preserve the planning consent. You could then reinforce that by applying for a 'Certificate of Lawfulness for Existing Use or Development'. In this way developers normally keep a planning consent valid. Whether it would work to prevent Miliband's land theft depends on the details, of course.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1788/the_free_schools_revolution
Ed Miliband’s energy announcement may be nonsense, but it could become popular
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/09/ed-milibands-energy-announcement-may-be-nonsense-but-it-could-become-popular-nonsense-if-no-alternative-is-offered/
I would replace the "could" with "will"...even though you are told time and time again, no such thing as a free lunch, the vast majority of people just can't refuse.
Tax on bank, well its not me....tax on energy companies, well its not me...tax on mansions, well its not me...
I see the Radicalised Right are already running scared re. energy prices
Yes Labour have an awful problem in their MPs. The Tories did too in 2001, but their failure to get elected then and subsequently did them a favour in that they now have a wide and talented pool to draw from (Labour had this effect in 1997 too).
If you look around parliament though and search for someone of sufficient talent to be put in charge of the country's money. (aka Your money and my money) then it's a bit of a no-brainer. None of them! The best candidate as far as I can make it out is EdBalls - lots of wise economic education there.. and yet he seems to be an economic dunce. GO on the other hand would appear to be a no-hoper and yet there's some credibility in his actions.
(At this point anyone that mentions Rachel Reeves, or Vince Cable simply mistakes their low-level experience for something better.)
So, really, it's over to the next guy... whoever he may be.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/170557132/SSRN-id2322420
https://flipboard.com/section/labour-conference-report-bqQnBU
We could have told them that...
Around areas like mine there is a belief - and this is probably mirrored in most parts of the country - that most politicians are the same, big business has them and us by the balls, and no matter who gets elected nothing will ever change. This belief isn't true of course; there are subtle differences, but the rise of UKIP is demonstrative of the agitation out there among ordinary people.
So if Ed Miliband got in, took the energy companies on and made it happen, I'd be impressed.
I'd be impressed because, statist though probably is, I can't remember a leader since Thatcher so willing to take on the big players and actually change big things. And let's remember, many traditional Tories thought Thatcher would fall flat on her face against the unions and the socialist consensus. Ed Miliband is obviously trying to shift things the other way and it may well all come crumbling down. But kudos for trying, and no little hope that he succeeds, because there are an awful lot of people out there - including me - who feel that the world could be a little fairer, if only those at the top, in business, politics and suchlike, just tried a little harder.
And I'm no Labour man. Not after the Brown years. Not by a long chalk.
Ed has rattled my fellow tories.
Of that there is no doubt.
What odds can we get on
Osborne (on a boat)
Sam Cam
Eton
Osborne (on a train)
Any Labour policy
Housing bubble
Osborne (in a car)
NHS
Osborne
I should also say I liked Miliband's focus on mental health and the importance of having trade unionists in a political party. These are two issues the Conservatives should also focus on more too.
The occasion is clearly too big. 10,000 will be snuck out in the middle of the night.
(That said, LibDems vary, and in places like Liverpool they include tactical Tories.)
Price freezes are probably not the answer (though Labour are only copying what Osborne did over a council tax freeze) but the Tories have done the square root of sod all about getting new energy supplies on tap.
Thanks very much. Its true that I am a Conservative party member, but I hope that doesn't stop me seeing the good in other Parties. At times PBetting is far too tribal for me and we seem mostly to shout but not listen to each other. Anyway your post was top rate .
Lets face it, the coalition energy policy has been run by the lib dems
The tories are rattled, but the libs must be absolutely bricking it right now.
What can they promise on energy prices?
My first thought is: how the hell is that going to work?
What's the point of having a competitive marketplace & regulatory structure if you're just going to freeze the damn prices anyway? I take it the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab if the wholesale price goes above the 'official' price?
The seaside town has taken on a festival atmosphere after thousands of conference fans descended for four days of speeches, seminars and mayhem. Office worker Tom Logan said: “The vibe on the train getting here was amazing.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/britons-flock-to-labour-party-conference-2013092479747
I think Cameron's best response is to say it's a wild spending commitment that will have to be financed by more taxation and / or more borrowing.
Of course technically it isn't Government spending but Cameron should just say money doesn't grow on trees , the money will have to come from somewhere, and the "only possible answer" is that it will ultimately come from the taxpayer.
Remember surveys show that very few people have much understanding of who does what, what government does, who decides what etc etc. People on here may think it's all obvious but the public isn't connected with these things. Which is why Cameron will be able to get away with my suggested line of attack.
An example would be continual increases and being told rises are due to investment in future infrastructure or oil prices or something along those lines which would affect their particular market, but then they also announce record profits, which certainly looks like the rise is therefore not down to meeting rising costs as their margins have gotten better.
I'm sure there is an explanation for how that is not sticking it to the consumer (I'm sure someone has provided me with an answer on here before), but it certainly lools like the energy companies therefore have no reason to increase prices so much, making a freeze look both attractive and reasonable.
1) Try to rubbish the policy, taking the side of the energy companies.
2) Come out with a watered down version of their own.
3) Outflank Labour by promising, say, a 5 year freeze.
None are going to be particularly attractive for them.
It's very good politics by Ed Miliband.
Edit sorry about the double quote,red wine to blame.
It's like waiting for genital warts to clear up. So a friend told me.
No it doesn't. Only efficient businesses should make a profit.
I will believe the power market is competitive when I see PowerGen or British Gas bankrupted because they are unable to compete with their competitors.
One problem is that we seem to be funding investment in power by allowing energy companies to make monopoly profits. The problem is that only some of this goes into investment, the rest will go into the shareholders, employees' and directors' pockets.
It seems all too likely that by tomorrow this will have gone (a) into an argument about the safety of our supplies or (b) into an argument about how much of our bills are currently made up of the green tariffs imposed by Ed whilst SoS.
10001110010000, if I haven't slipped a naught.
I think saying that labour is planning for power rationing is quite a good gambit
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430726/Labour-MPs-dance-like-dads-party-conference-Diversity-Night.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10331960/Centrica-claims-Labours-energy-price-freeze-could-put-it-out-of-business.html
I know you are no Labour man but that belief you mention at the top of your post , goes far and wide.
It is worth trawling past hundreds of re heated tweets , to get to a genuine thoughtful, makes you think comment.
Maybe, just maybe, the agitation felt by ordinary people that they do get shafted, and there is nothing they can do about it,might bring a reaction eventually in how politics is conducted, especially the concentration of just a few priviledged voters in marginal seats.
Or...
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-09-24/npower-prize-freeze-would-rule-out-new-investment/
"Alistair Phillips-Davies, chief executive of SSE, called on the Labour Party to transfer the costs of energy subsidies policies to general taxation, rather than paying for them on energy bills. "This would wipe £110 off the average person's bill and shift the cost away from those who cant afford to pay and on to those who can," he said."
My current thinking is that Ed Miliband has done OK today, but that OK probably isn't enough. A man whose top attribute is "out of his depth" needs to make only credible promises. He hasn't demonstrated that any of his promises are credible, never mind all of them.
On the conferences so far, without delving in too deep the Labour one seemed less intense to me, although that may just be because I've generally been warier of Labour and the LDs showing some confidence is noteworthy as a being big change, but neither has been a disaster. Cameron had best be careful - he seems the type who can mess up with an open goal in front of him (and better when his back is against the wall, if I may mix metaphors), and all he has to do is not screw up and be workman like as the others were, but he could overthink it.
It's also worth remembering that trust in all politicians is very, very low.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the majority of people don't actually believe Labour would freeze energy prices (or would be able to do so).
Many people will be remembering tuition fees. The fact that was the Lib Dems makes no difference - because trust in everyone is very low.
Lawyer tells us plan to freeze energy prices open to judicial review-have to establish if prices are justifiably too high (puts tin hat on)
Those levels are indeed pretty damn low so little Ed's biggest problem is that he's promising this at a time when his own polling is at one of it's lowest ebbs. That won't be the only factor but it's going to matter hugely and he'll have to start turning it around. Same with the others and their election pledges.
I would imagine that the real 'British Gas Owners' are the pension funds and those saving into them.