It is worth noting that the combined profits of the big six UK energy suppliers is enough to purchase just a couple of new CCGTs.
A more interesting question - rather than cherry-picking a date, from whence profits have risen - is to look at average returns on capital for the group now, as opposed to the decade long average. I don't personally know the answer, but I suspect that they went through a period of depressed profitability as demand dropped off post the GFC in 2008/2009.
It's also worth noting that energy companies' shares have hardly been stunning performers. Over the last five years, EDF has seen its share price cut in half. From memory, the same is true of E.On (although for rather different reasons). The five year chart on SSE is a bit more positive, its gone from 140p to 158p - but even that's hardly a barnstorming performance. British Gas is a special case - its owned by Centrica, and has substantial gas generating assets. Have profits risen their from gouging customers, or because its making good money from owning quite a lot of good oil and gas fields? (http://www.centrica.com/index.asp?pageid=918)
Likewise the legality question. The EU Commission might have given it an amber light but they're not the final arbiter and the ECJ could well come up with a different finding. Indeed, until the details are published, it'd be impossible for anyone to give a definitive answer. I don't really see how it's any different in principle from the minimum pricing policy for alcohol which was ruled out of bounds. If someone wants to pay more than the maximum (to secure supply for example), why shouldn't they be able to do so?
If the Commission says it's OK then it's hard to imagine anyone getting a case through the ECJ in less than the two years they're planning for the policy to last.
Artful
You need to consider this background statement to the referral of Poland by the EU Commission to the ECJ:
Internal energy market legislation (Directive 2009/73/EC) offers consumers the freedom to choose their supplier. The European objective, as confirmed by the Heads of State and Governments at the European Council in May 2013, is to establish a genuine European internal energy market by 2014. This will enhance security of supply and guarantee consumers more choice and the best possible service. The existence of a competitive EU internal energy market is the best way of ensuring security of supply and competitive energy prices. Regulated prices distort the markets as they do not reflect actual demand and limit effective competition. Furthermore, they can prevent new arrivals from entering the market. Therefore, and as confirmed by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, regulated prices may be adopted only when they serve the general economic interest and are proportionate, clearly defined, transparent, non-discriminatory and verifiable. The Court of Justice has confirmed this principle in its Federutility and ENEL judgments of 2010 and 2011. [My bolding]
I am not claiming that Labour's proposals are in conflict with EU legislation but it is clear from the above there will be plenty of scope for legal argument.
You know, this is a rare example of the EU being absolutely and unambiguously right.
Off topic - Anyone else think there's value in backing Villa to get relegated this season - 16/1 with Betfred?
I backed Villa to go down at 14s... After watching them vs Arsenal I thought they would ßtruggle at home as only seem able to counter attack ... 3/3 home defeats later and I forgot to back the away team each time
Cost of living is a good argument to go after I think because if it takes hold then it seriously undermines any credit the Tories will get for any economic recovery, by asking people 'Do you still feel like crap even though the economic figures are picking up?' Given so many have had reduced or frozen wages set against high inflation for several years, it taps into a lot of discontent and makes people dismiss the fact of any economic recovery as, well, too late to do ordinary people any good. I already thought Ed M was going to win three years ago, but if he plays things right he could win big and not just scrape over the line thanks to factors largely outside his control.
Though houses do not look very safe at the moment!
Indeed they may well both crash.
Ed benefits from low expectations, everyone expects him to be crap, so when he is merely dull it is a pleasant positive, and I do predict he will be next PM. I am preparing my finances accordingly, and like most public sector staff expect a good pay rise and pension protection
That's what I mean, good luck getting those arguments finished before the policy has.
That works in the energy company's favour.
They send you a bill, and you can go to court for not paying it.
The government says the bill exceeds their cap. Energy company says the cap is not legal. Pay the bills, or go to court, or we turn the lights out...
Hopefully Antifrank or someone will correct me if I'm wrong but IIUC the energy company has to obey UK law while everybody argues about whether UK law is in contravention of EU law, unless the utilities were able to get an injunction preventing the enforcement of the UK law.
Every one of the UK big six energy companies has a stall at the forthcoming Conservative Conference. Wonder if that will be mentioned between now and the end of the conference season ;-)
On EU legality, the one that sounded dodgy to me was the thing about requires you to take on apprentices to be allowed to get government contracts. Maybe there's a legal way to do it, but it sounds like a non-tariff barrier to me.
You're assuming the challenger would fail to get an injunction pending the outcome of the case.
Well, do you think they'd succeed? We're talking about a situation where the Commission has already looked at the proposals and said they're legal.
I would question the assumption that the Commission has "already looked at the proposals and said they're legal".
It would be strange practice for the Commission to vet and prejudge opposition party policy proposals in its member states. The most I would envisage would a scoping discussion with an off-the-record and without prejudice expression of comfort.
And I doubt whether the Labour policy proposals have been worked up into any form of implementable detail yet. So we are probably only talking about high level concepts even if there has been prior discussion.
Every one of the UK big six energy companies has a stall at the forthcoming Conservative Conference. Wonder if that will be mentioned between now and the end of the conference season ;-)
Just as often as the fact that Philip Morris tobacco company have a stall at Labour's conference, I expect.
On EU legality, the one that sounded dodgy to me was the thing about requires you to take on apprentices to be allowed to get government contracts. Maybe there's a legal way to do it, but it sounds like a non-tariff barrier to me.
Why on earth would any Government Minister want to intervene when Ed Miliband is busy making yet more enemies who are big enough to fight their own battles? Especially as the Energy companies are going to be pretty fired up now to campaign to leave the Labour party sorely exposed on yet another credibility front in the run up to the next GE? The BBC News at 10pm helpfully gave us a flash back life in the 70's when the lights went out under a Labour Government.
No, the big news is that Ed Miliband and the Labour party today conceded not just the economic battle to the Conservatives, but also the political centre ground that New Labour fought so hard and so long to win and control. With less than two years to go until the GE, Ed Miliband has decided to embrace his Red Ed socialist credentials in the hope of shoring up his core vote and keeping hold of 5/6% of Libdems who switched to Labour since the 2010 GE. Dan Hodges was bang on the money when he suggested that Ed Miliband was running a play safe Brownite 35% strategy in the hope that it will see the Labour party scrape back into power.
The Labour party at the last GE tried to suggest that David Cameron was away to fire up the Audi Quattro and take the UK back to the 80's. Well it looks like Ed Miliband now wants to be seen as the man who breathed new life into that old 70's Ford Cortina. And what of UKIP and the Libdems now that the Labour party has turned leftwards? Will this see a further polarisation of the vote between the Conservatives and Labour at the next GE? And if so, the tactical voting in the marginals won't necessary go all Labour's way as has been often assumed here by some.
Ed Millipeds energy freeze promise is not a policy: it's a slogan.
It reminds me of FDR's promise of 'A chicken in every pot' to the American nation during the harshest days of the depression. He couldn't carry out his promise - it took a world war and the growth that entailed to bring about its equivalent in the early 1950's. FDR was long dead.
Every one of the UK big six energy companies has a stall at the forthcoming Conservative Conference. Wonder if that will be mentioned between now and the end of the conference season ;-)
Just as often as the fact that Philip Morris tobacco company have a stall at Labour's conference, I expect.
I bet they will be popular at the conference. You wont get a minister within a mile of them in case someone takes a picture.
What we need is a picture of one of the ministers chuckling away inside one of the energy companies stalls, maybe supping on champers. Oh that would be glorious.
You're assuming the challenger would fail to get an injunction pending the outcome of the case.
Well, do you think they'd succeed? We're talking about a situation where the Commission has already looked at the proposals and said they're legal.
I would question the assumption that the Commission has "already looked at the proposals and said they're legal".
It would be strange practice for the Commission to vet and prejudge opposition party policy proposals in its member states. The most I would envisage would a scoping discussion with an off-the-record and without prejudice expression of comfort.
And I doubt whether the Labour policy proposals have been worked up into any form of implementable detail yet. So we are probably only talking about high level concepts even if there has been prior discussion.
Well, that's where this discussion came in - David Herdson's thought was that even if the EU give the green light Labour might still have problems at the ECJ, and my response was that it was hard to see that being a problem for them in practice, because even if somebody had a case it would take too long to litigate.
If the Commission says it's no good I'd expect them to just scrap it rather than fighting a legal case - in any case it'll have served its purpose at that point, which is to win the votes of dimwits struggling with energy bills. I'm sure they don't actually think it's a good practical policy.
Every one of the UK big six energy companies has a stall at the forthcoming Conservative Conference. Wonder if that will be mentioned between now and the end of the conference season ;-)
Perhaps the Conservatives will announce a promise to bin HMG climate change policies that increase the price of energy?
I think that you are going to be disappointed on that front if the Labour party win the next GE. Oddly enough, by far the biggest single pay rise I ever got in the public sector was from Thatcher's Government as a Staff Nurse back in the late 80's. And it really did make a hell of a difference to my immediate disposal income. Go figure. I think that Conservatives are going to win the next GE.
Though houses do not look very safe at the moment!
Indeed they may well both crash.
Ed benefits from low expectations, everyone expects him to be crap, so when he is merely dull it is a pleasant positive, and I do predict he will be next PM. I am preparing my finances accordingly, and like most public sector staff expect a good pay rise and pension protection
Ed Millipeds energy freeze promise is not a policy: it's a slogan.
It reminds me of FDR's promise of 'A chicken in every pot' to the American nation during the harshest days of the depression. He couldn't carry out his promise - it took a world war and the growth that entailed to bring about its equivalent in the early 1950's. FDR was long dead.
'Why on earth would any Government Minister want to intervene when Ed Miliband is busy making yet more enemies who are big enough to fight their own battles?'
Interesting comment from Rentoul on SKY that Labour will fight the next election as the anti business party..
I wonder what Mandy and Blair think seeing what their New Labour project has been reduced to under Ed The Red!
Thing is, I'm not all that certain Britain won't try a very left-wing government... How many people are alive who remember the 1970's clearly? And for those that do surely 40-35 years is enough to allow the memory to fade.
Everything in life is cyclical and fashions come and go. I could well imagine that Britain might elect an extreme socialist government in 2015...
For that reason, I'm going to start stocking up on candle's now.
And and the Tories had better start thinking about who will be the "New Thatcher" to rescue us from the socialist nightmare when the sh*t hit's the fan.
'Why on earth would any Government Minister want to intervene when Ed Miliband is busy making yet more enemies who are big enough to fight their own battles?'
Interesting comment from Rentoul on SKY that Labour will fight the next election as the anti business party..
What they'll be aiming for is just a little hint of Poujade: Support for hard-working small business-people being exploited by big, rapacious multi-nationals. Strategically there's probably some sense in that, although the current Labour front-bench don't really seem like the right people to sell it...
There is also the possibility that Ed is using the policy as a negotiating chip with the unions on continuing public sector pay restraint. "Look, Len, I'll help your members by taking on the big corporates on energy pricing and thereby increasing consumer living standards but in turn you will have to play ball on pay demands". It is much easier to argue for a cap on wages if similar caps are being applied to major household costs.
But a lot of this is also a battle for industries which Labour believe should have remained in the public sector: railways, energy supply (at least household distribution), postal services etc. These are the borderline industries where there isn't a truly free market being served by the industries, because of global commodity cartels, government subsidies for environmental ends, government investment requirements etc.
Labour don't trust the private sector to deliver fair pricing and competitive quality of service in such markets. They also don't want to relinquish the right to intervene for the purposes of wealth redistribution and social engineering.
As a reductio ad absurdum, look at the post of Grandiose [maybe not the original poster] on the previous thread where Andrea Eagle lists all the changes that Labour want to introduce into the provision of railway services.
The other side of the coin is that centre-right parties need to pay far more attention to ensuring that these 'semi-free market' industries are properly regulated to ensure that competition is maximised and barriers to industry participation are kept low.
The irony is that many of the problems faced by such industries are caused by government intervention. Who really thinks that high gas bills are driven by lack of competition in household delivery? Lack of competition is only a small factor: green subsidies, international cartel pricing, the desires of government to shift investment burdens to suppliers without impacting consumer prices, and excessive tax grabs are all far bigger drivers of household costs.
But a lot of this is also a battle for industries which Labour believe should have remained in the public sector: railways, energy supply (at least household distribution), postal services etc.
Did the 13 years of the last Labour government completely pass you by?
Ed Millipeds energy freeze promise is not a policy: it's a slogan.
It reminds me of FDR's promise of 'A chicken in every pot' to the American nation during the harshest days of the depression. He couldn't carry out his promise - it took a world war and the growth that entailed to bring about its equivalent in the early 1950's. FDR was long dead.
I'm cautiously excited about Comrade Ed Miliband's frenziedly electrifying dash towards Maoism.
If he does actually become Prime Minister, and if he fulfils his promise of an energy price freeze until the start of 2017, then we will be able to look forward to an exciting Winter of Discontent in 2015/16 as shortages lead to powercuts, and then another - potentially more existentially-exciting - Winter of Discontent in January/February 2017, when the end of the price freeze will lead to a huge spike in prices and pensioners will be rioting on the streets until they literally freeze solid.
The added bonus of children voting, a million new houses being built by New British Apprentices, and the confiscation of the land from the kulaks, will mean a bonanza of excitement for us normal people here in PB land. Imagine the frenzied splurgings of SeanT and the artificial indignation of the reactionaries who have false consciousness.
Every one of the UK big six energy companies has a stall at the forthcoming Conservative Conference. Wonder if that will be mentioned between now and the end of the conference season ;-)
Perhaps the Conservatives will announce a promise to bin HMG climate change policies that increase the price of energy?
That would be fun.
While the subsidies to wind have increased the cost of our electricity, I would not exaggerate the effect. Only about 5% of electricity comes from wind or solar - with solar being a negligable amount. If we assume that wind was 3x the price of traditional electricity (which it's not), then that would add 10% to the wholesale price of electricity.
However, it's not quite that simple, as the wholesale cost is only around 50% of the cost of the electricity that you or I pay for. The cost of transmission and distribution, the cost of billing, line losses, support and maintenance, and the profit margin earned by the electricity suppliers account for the rest. The cost of subsidising renewables probably adds somewhat less than 5% to the typical bill - significant, but nowhere near as important as the move in LNG prices from from around $3 in 2003 to $15 today.
But a lot of this is also a battle for industries which Labour believe should have remained in the public sector: railways, energy supply (at least household distribution), postal services etc.
Did the 13 years of the last Labour government completely pass you by?
They even privatised air traffic control!
Well not quite, Neil.
It was the Major government that started the privatisation process in 1992 when NATS was split off from the CAA. And then there were various preparatory restructurings which took place like incorporation under the Companies Act in 1996. So the path to privatisation was already mapped out before Labour came to power.
It still required a bailout from the government in 2001 (not uncommon in this type of privatisation).
I don't know the legal arrangements but I doubt NATS own the an irrevocable right in perpetuity to provide air traffic control services in the UK. I suspect that the government retains this right and contracts it out for predetermined terms.
If this is the case then NATS is really a contracted out service (like say the National Lottery to Camelot) rather than a full privatisation.
If this is the case then NATS is really a contracted out service (like say the National Lottery to Camelot) rather than a full privatisation.
Would I have been better off claiming they privatised a huge chunk of the country's gold?!
NATS looks rather a good company.
The idea of privatising public services; building up an expertise and competitive advantage in private sector provision; and then using this base for exporting services seems to have been mastered.
The company reports it has won a contract to sell services in the UAE.
This is the way forward for Britain, Neil. Much better than selling gold at rock bottom prices.
Every one of the UK big six energy companies has a stall at the forthcoming Conservative Conference. Wonder if that will be mentioned between now and the end of the conference season ;-)
Perhaps the Conservatives will announce a promise to bin HMG climate change policies that increase the price of energy?
That would be fun.
While the subsidies to wind have increased the cost of our electricity, I would not exaggerate the effect. Only about 5% of electricity comes from wind or solar - with solar being a negligable amount. If we assume that wind was 3x the price of traditional electricity (which it's not), then that would add 10% to the wholesale price of electricity.
However, it's not quite that simple, as the wholesale cost is only around 50% of the cost of the electricity that you or I pay for. The cost of transmission and distribution, the cost of billing, line losses, support and maintenance, and the profit margin earned by the electricity suppliers account for the rest. The cost of subsidising renewables probably adds somewhat less than 5% to the typical bill - significant, but nowhere near as important as the move in LNG prices from from around $3 in 2003 to $15 today.
It's not just the higher unit cost though is it? You also have the construction costs (wind + back up), the additional transmissions costs, the "carbon price floor" etc.
"I have tabled a lot of questions to the Minister on the issue. In reply to one, he has said that by 2020 around 23% of household electricity bills will be as a result of climate change policy. "
A family member has asked me to help book a hotel room in the vicinity of Heathrow Airport for 9th October for less than £100. I'm actually struggling to find anywhere at the moment apart from the Travelodge which gets horrendous reviews on TripAdvisor.
Go to laterooms.com
You can get some decent hotels on deals for less than £100, some prepay, some not
It's not just the higher unit cost though is it? You also have the construction costs (wind + back up), the additional transmissions costs, the "carbon price floor" etc.
"I have tabled a lot of questions to the Minister on the issue. In reply to one, he has said that by 2020 around 23% of household electricity bills will be as a result of climate change policy. "
I agree with you that - by 2020, and assuming nothing else changes! - 23% of electricity bills will come as a result of climate change legislation. However, that is not now. Today, perhaps 5% comes from the legislation.
It's worth taking a moment to ponder how the UK electricity market works (and I appreciate it is about to change with the introduction of capacity payments).
Currently, suppliers like E.On sell electricity to consumers and businesses at pre-arranged prices. To supply said customers, they buy electricity in the wholesale market from generating companies.
Under climate change legislation, if the wind is blowing, then the suppliers are obliged to buy first from wind operators, at what is essentially a fixed price. Including ROC certificates and the price mandated by the Department of Energy, this means they pay around 75 pounds per megawatt of electricity.
After they have absorbed all the wind, they then go and seek out the rest of electricity based on bids placed into the grid by the generators. This is the spot electricity price. (In reality, it's a little but more complicated because the electricity retailers will have both captive plant, and some long-term supply contracts based around the baseload price.)
The spot electricity price will be set by where on the 'merit order' we are. So, if it's a peak electricity demand time in the middle of winter, there is no wind, plus there is scheduled maintenance at a big nuclear plant and some unscheduled downtime caused by a blockage at a pipe in a large CCGT, then the marginal electricity supply plant will be at the right of the merit order. (I actually have a slide with all the UKs generating plants and their cost per MWh on, if you want to see it.) It's quite possible for peak electricity pricing to be over 100 pounds per MWh - at which point wind (being fixed price in nature) is the cheapest electricity on the grid.
On the other hand, it's quite possible for baseload electricity prices to be below 50 pounds per MWh, and under some exceptional circumstances power prices actually go negative. (These happen for various reasons, including thatoperators hate to power cycle coal plants.)
Now, the cost of constructing a wind farm is born by the wind farm operator. It's not a direct cost to the bill, except in that the grid (and therefore the consumer) pays rather more for electricity generated in that way than if it is generated at a CCGT. You are right that the carbon price also adds to the cost - however, this is largely covered by carbon credits gifted to existing plants, and by the ROC trading scheme.
Likewise, the cost of backup plant is born by you or me choosing to build a CCGT or not. I am paid for the electricity I generate, and that's is (although this will change, slightly, with the introduction of a capacity payment mechanism.)
If you can find me evidence that the renewables policies of this government and the last add more than 5% or so to bills, then present it. But, really, they don't. Unchecked, the roll-out of heavily subsidised off-shore wind (and the subsidies we've promised EDF to allow it to build new nuclear in the UK) will cause the cost to rise, as you've said to 20% or more. But we're not there right now.
The BBC cameraman thought that Margaret Curran MP was the anecdote lady. Ha ha ha. How inconsiderate and rude it was of President Obama to make a speech at the United Nations at the same time everybody was listening to Ed Miliband. But anyway, at least Ed only got 4 standing ovations in the middle of his speech. Nicolae Ceausescu got 67 in his speech a month before he was executed.
"Who has the unfortunate job of describing how explicit some pornography is to Blunkett so he can get appropriately outraged?"
He gets them in Braille
That reminds me of the old ASCII pornography that used to go around school, printed out via dot-matrix printers on fanfold paper. Dot matrix printers and fanfold paper have more or less gone, but schoolchildren exchanging soft-core porn is probably going to be around forever ...
'Red Ed dares to talk over the heads of the Tory press' says the Guardian.
During Leveson polls found only around 11% believed what the Daily Mail wrote and for the Sun this dropped to about 6%. Even a majority of their own readers regarded what they were reading as unreliable.
So an assault on the bloated self interest of our grubby foreign owned press would be a very astute and popular move and just think of the celebrity endorsement such a move would attract
So an assault on the bloated self interest of our grubby foreign owned press would be a very astute and popular move and just think of the celebrity endorsement such a move would attract
Yes, because Hugh Grant and his pet lobbying group Sucked Off are so credible and impartial.
"Who has the unfortunate job of describing how explicit some pornography is to Blunkett so he can get appropriately outraged?"
He gets them in Braille
That reminds me of the old ASCII pornography that used to go around school, printed out via dot-matrix printers on fanfold paper. Dot matrix printers and fanfold paper have more or less gone, but schoolchildren exchanging soft-core porn is probably going to be around forever ...
...and the Braille editions of Playboy. Preserved here in scanned form!
'Red Ed dares to talk over the heads of the Tory press' says the Guardian.
During Leveson polls found only around 11% believed what the Daily Mail wrote and for the Sun this dropped to about 6%. Even a majority of their own readers regarded what they were reading as unreliable.
So an assault on the bloated self interest of our grubby foreign owned press would be a very astute and popular move and just think of the celebrity endorsement such a move would attract
So true Roger, the power of celebrities endorsement is just so de rigueur. I often think if only Hitler had got Will Hays and George Formby on his side I could be wearing Hugo Boss every day and Richard Nabavi could take his pick from a selection of stunning leather gear.
@SophyRidgeSky: Ed M has written to energy bosses saying they can work together "Or you can reinforce in the public mind that you are part of the problem"
@paulwaugh: EdM letter to energy firms: "I appreciate you will not welcome all aspects of this package." But public consent needed 4 taxpayer guarantees
He wants investment, yet wants to cap prices whatever energy source costs do.
He's got no idea. He is clueless. He ran the department, but has learnt nothing.
I'm absolutely flabberghasted.
But what about the profits that have been skimmed off the top by the bosses and the share-holders for the last 30 years.They can avoid a rise in prices for 18 months while feeding off those profits!
He wants investment, yet wants to cap prices whatever energy source costs do.
He's got no idea. He is clueless. He ran the department, but has learnt nothing.
I'm absolutely flabberghasted.
But what about the profits that have been skimmed off the top by the bosses and the share-holders for the last 30 years.They can avoid a rise in prices for 18 months while feeding off those profits!
You also want them to invest in new power stations that are desperately needed. Which is it: new power stations or price capping? Realistic prices or brownouts?
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of profits versus turnover (preferably with investment as well) to see if price gouging is really going on.
(Edit: although the power companies do have questions to ask; for one thing, I'm unsure they're taking enough risk for the profits. But that is just a gut feeling and would depend on the figures I requested above)
In Ed Miliband's shadow cabinet there will be absolutely no anonymous briefing against colleagues...
Questioning the viability of HS2, Ed Balls showed he is out of step. As one Labour staffer said: “If Ed Balls wants the third runway instead of HS2, then he should have won the f***ing leadership election.”
He wants investment, yet wants to cap prices whatever energy source costs do.
He's got no idea. He is clueless. He ran the department, but has learnt nothing.
I'm absolutely flabberghasted.
But what about the profits that have been skimmed off the top by the bosses and the share-holders for the last 30 years.They can avoid a rise in prices for 18 months while feeding off those profits!
You also want them to invest in new power stations that are desperately needed. Which is it: new power stations or price capping? Realistic prices or brownouts?
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of profits versus turnover (preferably with investment as well) to see if price gouging is really going on.
As long as the power companies can direct the blackouts to places likes say Doncaster or Islington, I don't see why the rest of us should be too bothered.
He wants investment, yet wants to cap prices whatever energy source costs do.
He's got no idea. He is clueless. He ran the department, but has learnt nothing.
I'm absolutely flabberghasted.
But what about the profits that have been skimmed off the top by the bosses and the share-holders for the last 30 years.They can avoid a rise in prices for 18 months while feeding off those profits!
You also want them to invest in new power stations that are desperately needed. Which is it: new power stations or price capping? Realistic prices or brownouts?
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of profits versus turnover (preferably with investment as well) to see if price gouging is really going on.
(Edit: although the power companies do have questions to ask; for one thing, I'm unsure they're taking enough risk for the profits. But that is just a gut feeling and would depend on the figures I requested above)
For 30 years,they have gorged on profits.Let them dip into those savings for a very short time. Miliband only wants prices frozen for 18 months while he sorts the regulator out.
You`ll find there`s very little sympathy for the energy companies given there`s not even a price cut,just a freeze.
Oh yes: one final point - who do people think own the electricity distributors? By far the largest owners are the soon to be pensioners of the United Kingdom. How does Ed plan to recompense them? They invested in companies - i.e. they invested in generating capacity - to allow people to benefit from power and light, and in return to receive a profit. Electricity generation being a utility, the returns were modest. Now they are to be non-existant.
Brown-outs, and under-funded pension schemes: Mr Milliband (Junior) truly is a genius.
@ToryTreasury: Ed Miliband at select committee in 2009: "the energy companies need to make sufficient profits in order to invest in the future"
So now Tories have become guarantors of energy companies` profits.
It really is quite bizarre how Tory supporters on here start supporting Tesco or the big six energy companies whenever Miliband raises a relevant issue with them.
Oh yes: one final point - who do people think own the electricity distributors? By far the largest owners are the soon to be pensioners of the United Kingdom. How does Ed plan to recompense them? They invested in companies - i.e. they invested in generating capacity - to allow people to benefit from power and light, and in return to receive a profit. Electricity generation being a utility, the returns were modest. Now they are to be non-existant.
Brown-outs, and under-funded pension schemes: Mr Milliband (Junior) truly is a genius.
How many public sector pension funds would be affected by this? Aren't they all defined benefit, in which case they don't care?
He wants investment, yet wants to cap prices whatever energy source costs do.
He's got no idea. He is clueless. He ran the department, but has learnt nothing.
I'm absolutely flabberghasted.
But what about the profits that have been skimmed off the top by the bosses and the share-holders for the last 30 years.They can avoid a rise in prices for 18 months while feeding off those profits!
You also want them to invest in new power stations that are desperately needed. Which is it: new power stations or price capping? Realistic prices or brownouts?
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of profits versus turnover (preferably with investment as well) to see if price gouging is really going on.
(Edit: although the power companies do have questions to ask; for one thing, I'm unsure they're taking enough risk for the profits. But that is just a gut feeling and would depend on the figures I requested above)
For 30 years,they have gorged on profits.Let them dip into those savings for a very short time. Miliband only wants prices frozen for 18 months while he sorts the regulator out.
You`ll find there`s very little sympathy for the energy companies given there`s not even a price cut,just a freeze.
If you're claiming they're gouging, may I suggest you post figures? It's not just about profit, but profit vs turnover vs investment.
Otherwise you're just making stuff up to fit your worldview. Who knows, the figures may back you up. But I'm not sure you've got them ...
@ToryTreasury: Ed Miliband at select committee in 2009: "the energy companies need to make sufficient profits in order to invest in the future"
So now Tories have become guarantors of energy companies` profits.
It really is quite bizarre how Tory supporters on here start supporting Tesco or the big six energy companies whenever Miliband raises a relevant issue with them.
I think you'll find it is the principle of capitalism, rather than state owned 'enterprise', which they are defending.
So now Tories have become guarantors of energy companies` profits.
Can you read?
Ed Miliband said "the energy companies need to make sufficient profits in order to invest in the future"
EM at select com in 2009 (2/2): "energy companies need to make profits in order to invest. We are relying on them.. £100bn of investment"
Reduced profits for 18 months is not exactly a massive blow is it?
While these companies want guaranteed profits which increase by 10% each year,they haven`t noticed that wages have not been keeping pace with inflation for quite a few years.
SMukesh - If you think, that the shareholders are ripping off the customers, surely the best line of attack would be to persuade (force) said shareholders to sell up and invest in something else, and/or set up competition in electricity generation.
Oh yes: one final point - who do people think own the electricity distributors? By far the largest owners are the soon to be pensioners of the United Kingdom. How does Ed plan to recompense them? They invested in companies - i.e. they invested in generating capacity - to allow people to benefit from power and light, and in return to receive a profit. Electricity generation being a utility, the returns were modest. Now they are to be non-existant.
Brown-outs, and under-funded pension schemes: Mr Milliband (Junior) truly is a genius.
Private sector pensions - Eds paymasters don't care about them.
SMukesh - If you think, that the shareholders are ripping off the customers, surely the best line of attack would be to persuade (force) said shareholders to sell up and invest in something else, and/or set up competition in electricity generation.
It isn't a monopoly, you know.
And if all of these companies were raking in huge profits, surely there is a gap in the market for one of them to offer electricity/gas at rock-bottom prices, severely undercutting their competitors while building their own market share. Don't see that happening though, do we.
If you're claiming they're gouging, may I suggest you post figures? It's not just about profit, but profit vs turnover vs investment.
Surely it's not just those.
* Inefficiencies. Excess monopoly profits do not all become excess profits for the shareholder, they are spent on overstaffing, excess wages, directors' emoluments, spanish practices etc
* Reward to risk. Profit is the reward for taking a risk. Supplying a necessary commodity in an oligolopic market is a relatively low-risk activity, you would expect a lower return on investment than the average because it is safer.
So now Tories have become guarantors of energy companies` profits.
Can you read?
Ed Miliband said "the energy companies need to make sufficient profits in order to invest in the future"
EM at select com in 2009 (2/2): "energy companies need to make profits in order to invest. We are relying on them.. £100bn of investment"
Reduced profits for 18 months is not exactly a massive blow is it?
While these companies want guaranteed profits which increase by 10% each year,they haven`t noticed that wages have not been keeping pace with inflation for quite a few years.
You're not very good on this supply and demand stuff are you. If you keep bringing more people in to the country what do you think happens to wages ? Conversely if you have more work than people available then companies pay more to secure workers and invest in automation to increase productivity. Didn't they teach you that in Media Studies ?
* Reward to risk. Profit is the reward for taking a risk. Supplying a necessary commodity in an oligolopic market is a relatively low-risk activity, you would expect a lower return on investment than the average because it is safer.
Ask any wind farm owner, they are laughing all the way to the bank with their minimum prices! Where is the risk there?
So now Tories have become guarantors of energy companies` profits.
Can you read?
Ed Miliband said "the energy companies need to make sufficient profits in order to invest in the future"
EM at select com in 2009 (2/2): "energy companies need to make profits in order to invest. We are relying on them.. £100bn of investment"
Reduced profits for 18 months is not exactly a massive blow is it?
While these companies want guaranteed profits which increase by 10% each year,they haven`t noticed that wages have not been keeping pace with inflation for quite a few years.
How do you know that it'd be a reduced profit? It may cause a massive loss. Have you run the figures?
Other thoughts: 1) The figures may make marginal plants unprofitable from a risk point of view, reducing capacity when we need to increase it.
2) The uncertainty this announcement has made - yet alone it actually being enacted - adds risk to the investments we need the companies to make. Hence, Ed's announcement yesterday may actually put up energy prices before he ever sees power.
You have made a claim of price gouging. Please prove that claim, and then I might start taking you seriously. However, I'm not even sure you know the meaning of the term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging
" In Mr Miliband’s world, a freeze on bills will eat into the profits of greedy energy companies, stopping them wasting money on dividends. What he fails to grasp — apart from dividends being what companies pay investors in return for access to capital — is that the retail arms of many energy companies do not even make a profit. The household gas and electricity arm of EDF actually loses money.
Ah yes, says Mr Miliband, we can get around that by forcing energy firms to separate their generation and retail arms. G enerators will then sell energy into a pool that will open up the market to new entrants.
That is doubtful. Most experts believe such a move is more likely to drive retail suppliers out of business. Worse, it would mean substantially lower profits for power generators. So the likes of EDF and the German pair, E.ON and RWE, might conclude there was no point doing business in the UK any longer. > http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article3878281.ece
If you're claiming they're gouging, may I suggest you post figures? It's not just about profit, but profit vs turnover vs investment.
Surely it's not just those.
* Inefficiencies. Excess monopoly profits do not all become excess profits for the shareholder, they are spent on overstaffing, excess wages, directors' emoluments, spanish practices etc
* Reward to risk. Profit is the reward for taking a risk. Supplying a necessary commodity in an oligolopic market is a relatively low-risk activity, you would expect a lower return on investment than the average because it is safer.
Yep, indeed.
However I do have large concerns about the reward-to-risk ratio, as I mentioned below. I'm not convinced that the energy companies are taking enough risk. Certainly more transparency in the energy markets is in order.
Another way of seeing it, using RCS's excellent contribution, is that energy company profits are a governmental stealth tax to keep pension schemes fluid, hence reducing governmental costs. ;-)
It really is a challenge working out which of these policies is the most insane. I suspect the energy policy will fall apart fastest but let's go back to the land grab for the moment.
Article 1 protocol 1 of the ECHR gives protection to property rights. This does not stop public policy overriding these rights. In James-v-UK, for example, a policy that allowed leaseholders to buy their freeholds against the wishes of the freeholder was upheld. But the right to do this is subject to certain conditions principal of which is compensation.
So if the land with PP is to be compulsorily acquired they will have to be compensated not only for their land but also their planning consent. Risk free development! The opportunities for carousel type claims arising from multiple holders of planning consents would be very hard to resist. And why would you?
This is why I thought it was so odd that he was proposing to take the land yesterday. Time limits on the implementation of planning consents, currently 2-5 years depending, are a much better way to go provided there are other sites available for development. As with the power companies after 3 years this shows no signs of having been thought through at all.
That link only states that profits rose, not that they rose from high levels to excess. they might have only risen from poor to reasonable. I know the figures are large, but so is the market.
Declaration of interest: I have about £10 000 of SSE shares in my ISA.
If electricity companies are making excessive profits, then why cannot the existing regulator deal with it rather than Eds 1976-like system of price and wage controls?
Or why does no new competitor enter the market at a cheaper price?
Methinks the largest source of hot air in the future will be the Labour front bench.
So now Tories have become guarantors of energy companies` profits.
Can you read?
Ed Miliband said "the energy companies need to make sufficient profits in order to invest in the future"
EM at select com in 2009 (2/2): "energy companies need to make profits in order to invest. We are relying on them.. £100bn of investment"
Reduced profits for 18 months is not exactly a massive blow is it?
While these companies want guaranteed profits which increase by 10% each year,they haven`t noticed that wages have not been keeping pace with inflation for quite a few years.
How do you know that it'd be a reduced profit? It may cause a massive loss. Have you run the figures?
Other thoughts: 1) The figures may make marginal plants unprofitable from a risk point of view, reducing capacity when we need to increase it.
2) The uncertainty this announcement has made - yet alone it actually being enacted - adds risk to the investments we need the companies to make. Hence, Ed's announcement yesterday may actually put up energy prices before he ever sees power.
You have made a claim of price gouging. Please prove that claim, and then I might start taking you seriously. However, I'm not even sure you know the meaning of the term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging
Comments
A more interesting question - rather than cherry-picking a date, from whence profits have risen - is to look at average returns on capital for the group now, as opposed to the decade long average. I don't personally know the answer, but I suspect that they went through a period of depressed profitability as demand dropped off post the GFC in 2008/2009.
It's also worth noting that energy companies' shares have hardly been stunning performers. Over the last five years, EDF has seen its share price cut in half. From memory, the same is true of E.On (although for rather different reasons). The five year chart on SSE is a bit more positive, its gone from 140p to 158p - but even that's hardly a barnstorming performance. British Gas is a special case - its owned by Centrica, and has substantial gas generating assets. Have profits risen their from gouging customers, or because its making good money from owning quite a lot of good oil and gas fields? (http://www.centrica.com/index.asp?pageid=918)
Night all.
Dear God. He's awful.
Though houses do not look very safe at the moment!
Indeed they may well both crash.
Ed benefits from low expectations, everyone expects him to be crap, so when he is merely dull it is a pleasant positive, and I do predict he will be next PM. I am preparing my finances accordingly, and like most public sector staff expect a good pay rise and pension protection
It would be strange practice for the Commission to vet and prejudge opposition party policy proposals in its member states. The most I would envisage would a scoping discussion with an off-the-record and without prejudice expression of comfort.
And I doubt whether the Labour policy proposals have been worked up into any form of implementable detail yet. So we are probably only talking about high level concepts even if there has been prior discussion.
I can see that may be a problem.
No, the big news is that Ed Miliband and the Labour party today conceded not just the economic battle to the Conservatives, but also the political centre ground that New Labour fought so hard and so long to win and control. With less than two years to go until the GE, Ed Miliband has decided to embrace his Red Ed socialist credentials in the hope of shoring up his core vote and keeping hold of 5/6% of Libdems who switched to Labour since the 2010 GE. Dan Hodges was bang on the money when he suggested that Ed Miliband was running a play safe Brownite 35% strategy in the hope that it will see the Labour party scrape back into power.
The Labour party at the last GE tried to suggest that David Cameron was away to fire up the Audi Quattro and take the UK back to the 80's. Well it looks like Ed Miliband now wants to be seen as the man who breathed new life into that old 70's Ford Cortina. And what of UKIP and the Libdems now that the Labour party has turned leftwards? Will this see a further polarisation of the vote between the Conservatives and Labour at the next GE? And if so, the tactical voting in the marginals won't necessary go all Labour's way as has been often assumed here by some.
It reminds me of FDR's promise of 'A chicken in every pot' to the American nation during the harshest days of the depression. He couldn't carry out his promise - it took a world war and the growth that entailed to bring about its equivalent in the early 1950's. FDR was long dead.
twitter.com/oflynnexpress/status/382536970049556481
If the Commission says it's no good I'd expect them to just scrap it rather than fighting a legal case - in any case it'll have served its purpose at that point, which is to win the votes of dimwits struggling with energy bills. I'm sure they don't actually think it's a good practical policy.
That would be fun.
'Why on earth would any Government Minister want to intervene when Ed Miliband is busy making yet more enemies who are big enough to fight their own battles?'
Interesting comment from Rentoul on SKY that Labour will fight the next election as the anti business party..
Well, that's where this discussion came in ...
There is also the possibility that Ed is using the policy as a negotiating chip with the unions on continuing public sector pay restraint. "Look, Len, I'll help your members by taking on the big corporates on energy pricing and thereby increasing consumer living standards but in turn you will have to play ball on pay demands". It is much easier to argue for a cap on wages if similar caps are being applied to major household costs.
But a lot of this is also a battle for industries which Labour believe should have remained in the public sector: railways, energy supply (at least household distribution), postal services etc. These are the borderline industries where there isn't a truly free market being served by the industries, because of global commodity cartels, government subsidies for environmental ends, government investment requirements etc.
Labour don't trust the private sector to deliver fair pricing and competitive quality of service in such markets. They also don't want to relinquish the right to intervene for the purposes of wealth redistribution and social engineering.
As a reductio ad absurdum, look at the post of Grandiose [maybe not the original poster] on the previous thread where Andrea Eagle lists all the changes that Labour want to introduce into the provision of railway services.
The other side of the coin is that centre-right parties need to pay far more attention to ensuring that these 'semi-free market' industries are properly regulated to ensure that competition is maximised and barriers to industry participation are kept low.
The irony is that many of the problems faced by such industries are caused by government intervention. Who really thinks that high gas bills are driven by lack of competition in household delivery? Lack of competition is only a small factor: green subsidies, international cartel pricing, the desires of government to shift investment burdens to suppliers without impacting consumer prices, and excessive tax grabs are all far bigger drivers of household costs.
They even privatised air traffic control!
If he does actually become Prime Minister, and if he fulfils his promise of an energy price freeze until the start of 2017, then we will be able to look forward to an exciting Winter of Discontent in 2015/16 as shortages lead to powercuts, and then another - potentially more existentially-exciting - Winter of Discontent in January/February 2017, when the end of the price freeze will lead to a huge spike in prices and pensioners will be rioting on the streets until they literally freeze solid.
The added bonus of children voting, a million new houses being built by New British Apprentices, and the confiscation of the land from the kulaks, will mean a bonanza of excitement for us normal people here in PB land. Imagine the frenzied splurgings of SeanT and the artificial indignation of the reactionaries who have false consciousness.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24223744
This man had an actual paid job for the British government.
However, it's not quite that simple, as the wholesale cost is only around 50% of the cost of the electricity that you or I pay for. The cost of transmission and distribution, the cost of billing, line losses, support and maintenance, and the profit margin earned by the electricity suppliers account for the rest. The cost of subsidising renewables probably adds somewhat less than 5% to the typical bill - significant, but nowhere near as important as the move in LNG prices from from around $3 in 2003 to $15 today.
It was the Major government that started the privatisation process in 1992 when NATS was split off from the CAA. And then there were various preparatory restructurings which took place like incorporation under the Companies Act in 1996. So the path to privatisation was already mapped out before Labour came to power.
It still required a bailout from the government in 2001 (not uncommon in this type of privatisation).
I don't know the legal arrangements but I doubt NATS own the an irrevocable right in perpetuity to provide air traffic control services in the UK. I suspect that the government retains this right and contracts it out for predetermined terms.
If this is the case then NATS is really a contracted out service (like say the National Lottery to Camelot) rather than a full privatisation.
Who has the unfortunate job of describing how explicit some pornography is to Blunkett so he can get appropriately outraged?
Are you pro-privatisation on principle or is this forbidden by your union links?
The idea of privatising public services; building up an expertise and competitive advantage in private sector provision; and then using this base for exporting services seems to have been mastered.
The company reports it has won a contract to sell services in the UAE.
This is the way forward for Britain, Neil. Much better than selling gold at rock bottom prices.
"I have tabled a lot of questions to the Minister on the issue. In reply to one, he has said that by 2020 around 23% of household electricity bills will be as a result of climate change policy. "
http://www.thegwpf.org/mps-attack-impact-climate-change-act-families-industry/
It wasn't a mistake by Gordon Brown. He did it deliberately, consciously offensively.
It's worth taking a moment to ponder how the UK electricity market works (and I appreciate it is about to change with the introduction of capacity payments).
Currently, suppliers like E.On sell electricity to consumers and businesses at pre-arranged prices. To supply said customers, they buy electricity in the wholesale market from generating companies.
Under climate change legislation, if the wind is blowing, then the suppliers are obliged to buy first from wind operators, at what is essentially a fixed price. Including ROC certificates and the price mandated by the Department of Energy, this means they pay around 75 pounds per megawatt of electricity.
After they have absorbed all the wind, they then go and seek out the rest of electricity based on bids placed into the grid by the generators. This is the spot electricity price. (In reality, it's a little but more complicated because the electricity retailers will have both captive plant, and some long-term supply contracts based around the baseload price.)
The spot electricity price will be set by where on the 'merit order' we are. So, if it's a peak electricity demand time in the middle of winter, there is no wind, plus there is scheduled maintenance at a big nuclear plant and some unscheduled downtime caused by a blockage at a pipe in a large CCGT, then the marginal electricity supply plant will be at the right of the merit order. (I actually have a slide with all the UKs generating plants and their cost per MWh on, if you want to see it.) It's quite possible for peak electricity pricing to be over 100 pounds per MWh - at which point wind (being fixed price in nature) is the cheapest electricity on the grid.
[continued]
On the other hand, it's quite possible for baseload electricity prices to be below 50 pounds per MWh, and under some exceptional circumstances power prices actually go negative. (These happen for various reasons, including thatoperators hate to power cycle coal plants.)
Now, the cost of constructing a wind farm is born by the wind farm operator. It's not a direct cost to the bill, except in that the grid (and therefore the consumer) pays rather more for electricity generated in that way than if it is generated at a CCGT. You are right that the carbon price also adds to the cost - however, this is largely covered by carbon credits gifted to existing plants, and by the ROC trading scheme.
Likewise, the cost of backup plant is born by you or me choosing to build a CCGT or not. I am paid for the electricity I generate, and that's is (although this will change, slightly, with the introduction of a capacity payment mechanism.)
If you can find me evidence that the renewables policies of this government and the last add more than 5% or so to bills, then present it. But, really, they don't. Unchecked, the roll-out of heavily subsidised off-shore wind (and the subsidies we've promised EDF to allow it to build new nuclear in the UK) will cause the cost to rise, as you've said to 20% or more. But we're not there right now.
"Who has the unfortunate job of describing how explicit some pornography is to Blunkett so he can get appropriately outraged?"
He gets them in Braille
During Leveson polls found only around 11% believed what the Daily Mail wrote and for the Sun this dropped to about 6%. Even a majority of their own readers regarded what they were reading as unreliable.
So an assault on the bloated self interest of our grubby foreign owned press would be a very astute and popular move and just think of the celebrity endorsement such a move would attract
http://blog.archive.org/2011/08/17/scanning-a-braille-playboy/
@paulwaugh: EdM letter to energy firms: "I appreciate you will not welcome all aspects of this package." But public consent needed 4 taxpayer guarantees
He wants investment, yet wants to cap prices whatever energy source costs do.
He's got no idea. He is clueless. He ran the department, but has learnt nothing.
I'm absolutely flabberghasted.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of profits versus turnover (preferably with investment as well) to see if price gouging is really going on.
(Edit: although the power companies do have questions to ask; for one thing, I'm unsure they're taking enough risk for the profits. But that is just a gut feeling and would depend on the figures I requested above)
Said it.
Now, it's bedtime.
Night all.
Con 34% (+2) Lab 39% (-1) LD 10% (nc) UKIP 10% (-2) APP -22 (+5)
You`ll find there`s very little sympathy for the energy companies given there`s not even a price cut,just a freeze.
Brown-outs, and under-funded pension schemes: Mr Milliband (Junior) truly is a genius.
It really is quite bizarre how Tory supporters on here start supporting Tesco or the big six energy companies whenever Miliband raises a relevant issue with them.
Ed Miliband said "the energy companies need to make sufficient profits in order to invest in the future"
EM at select com in 2009 (2/2): "energy companies need to make profits in order to invest. We are relying on them.. £100bn of investment"
Otherwise you're just making stuff up to fit your worldview. Who knows, the figures may back you up. But I'm not sure you've got them ...
As a starter, here's, SSE's 2012 annual report is at:
http://www.sse.com/uploadedFiles/Controls/Lists/Reports_and_Results/SSE_AnnualReport2012.pdf
While these companies want guaranteed profits which increase by 10% each year,they haven`t noticed that wages have not been keeping pace with inflation for quite a few years.
It isn't a monopoly, you know.
* Inefficiencies. Excess monopoly profits do not all become excess profits for the shareholder, they are spent on overstaffing, excess wages, directors' emoluments, spanish practices etc
* Reward to risk. Profit is the reward for taking a risk. Supplying a necessary commodity in an oligolopic market is a relatively low-risk activity, you would expect a lower return on investment than the average because it is safer.
Other thoughts:
1) The figures may make marginal plants unprofitable from a risk point of view, reducing capacity when we need to increase it.
2) The uncertainty this announcement has made - yet alone it actually being enacted - adds risk to the investments we need the companies to make. Hence, Ed's announcement yesterday may actually put up energy prices before he ever sees power.
You have made a claim of price gouging. Please prove that claim, and then I might start taking you seriously. However, I'm not even sure you know the meaning of the term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging
Ah yes, says Mr Miliband, we can get around that by forcing energy firms to separate their generation and retail arms. G enerators will then sell energy into a pool that will open up the market to new entrants.
That is doubtful. Most experts believe such a move is more likely to drive retail suppliers out of business. Worse, it would mean substantially lower profits for power generators. So the likes of EDF and the German pair, E.ON and RWE, might conclude there was no point doing business in the UK any longer. > http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article3878281.ece
However I do have large concerns about the reward-to-risk ratio, as I mentioned below. I'm not convinced that the energy companies are taking enough risk. Certainly more transparency in the energy markets is in order.
Another way of seeing it, using RCS's excellent contribution, is that energy company profits are a governmental stealth tax to keep pension schemes fluid, hence reducing governmental costs. ;-)
Article 1 protocol 1 of the ECHR gives protection to property rights. This does not stop public policy overriding these rights. In James-v-UK, for example, a policy that allowed leaseholders to buy their freeholds against the wishes of the freeholder was upheld. But the right to do this is subject to certain conditions principal of which is compensation.
So if the land with PP is to be compulsorily acquired they will have to be compensated not only for their land but also their planning consent. Risk free development! The opportunities for carousel type claims arising from multiple holders of planning consents would be very hard to resist. And why would you?
This is why I thought it was so odd that he was proposing to take the land yesterday. Time limits on the implementation of planning consents, currently 2-5 years depending, are a much better way to go provided there are other sites available for development. As with the power companies after 3 years this shows no signs of having been thought through at all.
If electricity companies are making excessive profits, then why cannot the existing regulator deal with it rather than Eds 1976-like system of price and wage controls?
Or why does no new competitor enter the market at a cheaper price?
Methinks the largest source of hot air in the future will be the Labour front bench.