Read my posts below. That headline means little without knowing turnover and investment levels, amongst other information (as JL says below).
Say they made £1 a year ago, and £1.74 this year. That headline would still be true. If they had a turnover of £100 million, that would be measly profits.
It's the old Royal Mail story. Putting the price of a stamp up by a penny could mean the difference between a loss of millions and a profit of millions, both of which were always reported gleefully by the media. Large amounts always make good headlines; the truth is buried within.
Which of the big 6 is going to announce first they will withdraw from the UK market until Ed is finished pissing about? How many will follow?
Centrica have said they would. EDF's retail arm apparently loses money and the profit margins are about 4.5% - that's half the cost of the Climate Change Levy that we all pay that EdM brought in.
I'm trying to find the article I read this in - it was very good.
Read my posts below. That headline means little without knowing turnover and investment levels, amongst other information (as JL says below).
Say they made £1 a year ago, and £1.74 this year. That headline would still be true. If they had a turnover of £100 million, that would be measly profits.
It's the old Royal Mail story. Putting the price of a stamp up by a penny could mean the difference between a loss of millions and a profit of millions, both of which were always reported gleefully by the media. Large amounts always make good headlines; the truth is buried within.
I wish you the best of luck defending them Josias. The have been taking the wee wee for years now, time to have a crack at them. Wages are not keeping up with prices. Working families are getting poorer.
I have concluded that much of the political class simply has no idea how the world really works. They live in a bubble. It is genuinely worrying that we are more likely than not to have Miliblob as PM in 18 months when he clearly has not even a junior school appreciation of the laws of supply and demand.
He sees very clearly the pain of high energy bills (good!) but has not a single idea about why bills are high and believes, incredibly, that price controls is a potential answer in a free market economy. He's not insane. He's just completely out of his depth.
Judging by the morning's press this farcically ill thought out energy plan is unravelling at supersonic speed. Does Ed not have any advisors?
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:
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.
...Ed, or a Labour party spokesman, addressed this yesterday. It was stated that if energy companies put up prices before the next election then this was Cameron's problem and he could deal with it.
Read my posts below. That headline means little without knowing turnover and investment levels, amongst other information (as JL says below).
Say they made £1 a year ago, and £1.74 this year. That headline would still be true. If they had a turnover of £100 million, that would be measly profits.
It's the old Royal Mail story. Putting the price of a stamp up by a penny could mean the difference between a loss of millions and a profit of millions, both of which were always reported gleefully by the media. Large amounts always make good headlines; the truth is buried within.
I wish you the best of luck defending them Josias. The have been taking the wee wee for years now, time to have a crack at them. Wages are not keeping up with prices. Working families are getting poorer.
It's called the chickens coming home to roost. The fun was had in the noughties and now the bill has come in and it all has to be paid for. Your lifestyle has just caught up with you.
A £600,000 salary plus bonus doesn't sound too bad for a company of that size. The headline has been inflated dramatically by the size of the pension pot which has no doubt been accumulated over a significant number of years.
What I can't grasp here is how Labourites think that the taxes raised from energy companies won't fall as a result - so they'll have less £££ to spend on public services.
You can't control prices in a global wholesale market - what happens if the price really goes up - will the Treasury make up the difference? It's nonsense on stilts. No business is going to stay in the UK or invest TENS OF BILLIONS with an attitude like this.
Surely a better policy would be to cut VAT on gas/electricity for residential accounts from 5% to 2.5% or 0%? I wonder if that would be more progressive than a straight VAT cut?
Greetings, comrades and capitalist pigdogs (you shall be dealt with).
Already Comrade Miliband, endowed with undoubted expertise from his time as People's Commissar of Furnaces, has the Enemy of the People on the run!
The energy companies tremble at the name 'Miliband'! Now they realise their days of profit and profligacy are over! Once the British people enjoy the traditional, sustainable, renewable sources of energy (such as candles, oil lamps and hearths) the energy giants will see they have no place in modern Britain!
The climate change these industrialist brutes are responsible for will ensure their demise will not trouble us, for who could possibly need central heating in a country ravaged by the scorching summers and mild winters to which we are now accustomed?
Comrade Miliband is a Hero of the People, comrades, and soon he will have slain the energy giants who have stolen the wealth of the people for too long!
Surely a better policy would be to cut VAT on gas/electricity for residential accounts from 5% to 2.5% or 0%? I wonder if that would be more progressive than a straight VAT cut?
Surely a better policy would be to cut VAT on gas/electricity for residential accounts from 5% to 2.5% or 0%? I wonder if that would be more progressive than a straight VAT cut?
Post of the day.
Hey, I don't know crap about politics, that's why I'm a commentator on PB ;-)
Surely a better policy would be to cut VAT on gas/electricity for residential accounts from 5% to 2.5% or 0%? I wonder if that would be more progressive than a straight VAT cut?
Post of the day.
Hey, I don't know crap about politics, that's why I'm a commentator on PB ;-)
If you don't know crap about politics, you probably come from the real world, and work through suggestions, tossing ideas around, see if they work, what could go wrong etc?
Sometimes a good idea falls from this. Hopefully the baby eaters will use it. Reduction in taxes? Brilliant.
Surely a better policy would be to cut VAT on gas/electricity for residential accounts from 5% to 2.5% or 0%? I wonder if that would be more progressive than a straight VAT cut?
Post of the day.
It's against EU rules, which aim to steer us towards a joint single VAT rate on the general theory that differentiating VAT rates is bad economics as it distorts behaviour. Where we already have a discount we can keep it, but we can't add new ones or increase what we've got.
If you don't know crap about politics, you probably come from the real world, and work through suggestions, tossing ideas around, see if they work, what could go wrong etc?
Sometimes a good idea falls from this. Hopefully the baby eaters will use it. Reduction in taxes? Brilliant.
I would be genuinely interested to see one of those income decile plots for a change in VAT on fuel (argh, I mean gas/electricity). I have a hunch that it would be less regressive than a VAT cut, given that rich people can spend much more on items for which VAT is due (i.e. lots of gadgets/tvs whatever). WHen it comes to gas/electricity, I doubt there is as large a disparity, given a similar size home.
Surely a better policy would be to cut VAT on gas/electricity for residential accounts from 5% to 2.5% or 0%? I wonder if that would be more progressive than a straight VAT cut?
Post of the day.
It's against EU rules, which aim to steer us towards a joint single VAT rate on the general theory that differentiating VAT rates is bad economics as it distorts behaviour. Where we already have a discount we can keep it, but we can't add new ones or increase what we've got.
Aha, Labour might have thought this one out then, and will be using it to bash the baby eaters.
Seriously though, how does a VAT cut on electricity distort behaviour in the common market? I can't run an extension cord to France to get my power, for instance.
Surely a better policy would be to cut VAT on gas/electricity for residential accounts from 5% to 2.5% or 0%? I wonder if that would be more progressive than a straight VAT cut?
Post of the day.
It's against EU rules, which aim to steer us towards a joint single VAT rate on the general theory that differentiating VAT rates is bad economics as it distorts behaviour. Where we already have a discount we can keep it, but we can't add new ones or increase what we've got.
Is it ? I thought temporary cuts were allowed. If you can't cut VAT on fuel then how were Labour going to cut VAT on everything else ? Darling managed a temporary VAT cut of 2.5% and since the proposed price freeze is temporary where's the problem ? It is a temporary freeze Nick right ?
So the companies making a billion pounds per year each(for the big 4) will quit the UK because they have been told to tighten the belt for 18 months
Spin this yarn as much as you like,it won`t happen.
Your grasp of International business and finance is breathtaking.
Dear energy company,
You have the choice between fixed prices in the UK regardless of costs, or maximising your profits in any other market in the World. After 18 months, the new market in the UK will be the most regulated on Earth.
Is it ? I thought temporary cuts were allowed. If you can't cut VAT on fuel then how were Labour going to cut VAT on everything else ? Darling managed a temporary VAT cut of 2.5% and since the proposed price freeze is temporary where's the problem ? It is a temporary freeze Nick right ?
We could just implement it like those temporary income taxes Parliament levies. ;-)
Judging by the morning's press this farcically ill thought out energy plan is unravelling at supersonic speed. Does Ed not have any advisors?
@politicshome: Ed M asked to name another country that's implemented a price freeze - "I’m focused on our system...that’s what we’ve got to sort out."
@ITVLauraK: @politicshome Belgium tried it last year - We found that out last night - bit weird if labour hasn't looked at the example
The difference between a headline and a workable policy. Hard graft. Alien to Miliband.
My mind is boggling at what thinking Labour has done here. Not much it appears - still EdM has made Len McCluskey happy - his view of the speech
"Immediately after the speech, Len McCluskey, the General Secretary of Unite, was able to say that there was nothing in the speech that he did not like. It is surely axiomatic that if Mr McCluskey liked it that much, it must have been unpopular in the rest of the country. It is probable that the most eye-catching proposal — the pledge to freeze energy prices for two years from 2015 — will be popular among families understandably worried by high bills. However, it is hard to think of an instance of price controls working in the past and no reason to suppose that they will work in the future. The more likely outcome is that investment levels will fall and that blackouts come a little closer..." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article3878255.ece
Is it ? I thought temporary cuts were allowed. If you can't cut VAT on fuel then how were Labour going to cut VAT on everything else ? Darling managed a temporary VAT cut of 2.5% and since the proposed price freeze is temporary where's the problem ? It is a temporary freeze Nick right ?
We could just implement it like those temporary income taxes Parliament levies. ;-)
Read my posts below. That headline means little without knowing turnover and investment levels, amongst other information (as JL says below).
Say they made £1 a year ago, and £1.74 this year. That headline would still be true. If they had a turnover of £100 million, that would be measly profits.
It's the old Royal Mail story. Putting the price of a stamp up by a penny could mean the difference between a loss of millions and a profit of millions, both of which were always reported gleefully by the media. Large amounts always make good headlines; the truth is buried within.
I wish you the best of luck defending them Josias. The have been taking the wee wee for years now, time to have a crack at them. Wages are not keeping up with prices. Working families are getting poorer.
It's called the chickens coming home to roost. The fun was had in the noughties and now the bill has come in and it all has to be paid for. Your lifestyle has just caught up with you.
Don't you know we're entitled to our lifestyles and its up to someone else to work harder than us and enjoy lower living standards than us so that we can have what we want.
Judging by the morning's press this farcically ill thought out energy plan is unravelling at supersonic speed. Does Ed not have any advisors?
@politicshome: Ed M asked to name another country that's implemented a price freeze - "I’m focused on our system...that’s what we’ve got to sort out."
@ITVLauraK: @politicshome Belgium tried it last year - We found that out last night - bit weird if labour hasn't looked at the example
The difference between a headline and a workable policy. Hard graft. Alien to Miliband.
My mind is boggling at what thinking Labour has done here. Not much it appears - still EdM has made Len McCluskey happy - his view of the speech
"Immediately after the speech, Len McCluskey, the General Secretary of Unite, was able to say that there was nothing in the speech that he did not like. It is surely axiomatic that if Mr McCluskey liked it that much, it must have been unpopular in the rest of the country. It is probable that the most eye-catching proposal — the pledge to freeze energy prices for two years from 2015 — will be popular among families understandably worried by high bills. However, it is hard to think of an instance of price controls working in the past and no reason to suppose that they will work in the future. The more likely outcome is that investment levels will fall and that blackouts come a little closer..." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article3878255.ece
The bit I'm waiting for is the green fallout. If prices fall people will use more electricity therefore more carbon. Where's Ms Lucas this morning, this is her big day.
Do you mean to tell me that a Labour government would put at risk my 20% capital gain and 6% pa dividend that National Grid and Scottish Power pay me just so some paupers can have affordable heating and light?
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.
So energy price rises are good, including those we've already had, because they assist the pensioners of Britain? I do hope Cameron tries that line.
Read my posts below. That headline means little without knowing turnover and investment levels, amongst other information (as JL says below).
Say they made £1 a year ago, and £1.74 this year. That headline would still be true. If they had a turnover of £100 million, that would be measly profits.
It's the old Royal Mail story. Putting the price of a stamp up by a penny could mean the difference between a loss of millions and a profit of millions, both of which were always reported gleefully by the media. Large amounts always make good headlines; the truth is buried within.
I wish you the best of luck defending them Josias. The have been taking the wee wee for years now, time to have a crack at them. Wages are not keeping up with prices. Working families are getting poorer.
It's called the chickens coming home to roost. The fun was had in the noughties and now the bill has come in and it all has to be paid for. Your lifestyle has just caught up with you.
Don't you know we're entitled to our lifestyles and its up to someone else to work harder than us and enjoy lower living standards than us so that we can have what we want.
Do you mean to tell me that a Labour government are putting at risk my 20% capital gain and 6% pa dividend that National Grid and Scottish Power pay me just so some paupers can have affordable heating and light?
The bastards.
I had thought there was a cross-party consensus to encourage private sector investment in infrastructure. Perhaps you or one of the other Labour supporters would like to explain to an investor considering the political risks of a long term infrastructure investment why they should be unconcerned about Ed Milband's energy announcement, since the message seems to be that excessive profits are in the eye of the beholder and the beholder may have votes to harvest.
Do you mean to tell me that a Labour government would put at risk my 20% capital gain and 6% pa dividend that National Grid and Scottish Power pay me just so some paupers can have affordable heating and light?
Judging by the morning's press this farcically ill thought out energy plan is unravelling at supersonic speed. Does Ed not have any advisors?
@politicshome: Ed M asked to name another country that's implemented a price freeze - "I’m focused on our system...that’s what we’ve got to sort out."
@ITVLauraK: @politicshome Belgium tried it last year - We found that out last night - bit weird if labour hasn't looked at the example
The difference between a headline and a workable policy. Hard graft. Alien to Miliband.
My mind is boggling at what thinking Labour has done here. Not much it appears - still EdM has made Len McCluskey happy - his view of the speech
"Immediately after the speech, Len McCluskey, the General Secretary of Unite, was able to say that there was nothing in the speech that he did not like. It is surely axiomatic that if Mr McCluskey liked it that much, it must have been unpopular in the rest of the country. It is probable that the most eye-catching proposal — the pledge to freeze energy prices for two years from 2015 — will be popular among families understandably worried by high bills. However, it is hard to think of an instance of price controls working in the past and no reason to suppose that they will work in the future. The more likely outcome is that investment levels will fall and that blackouts come a little closer..." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article3878255.ece
The bit I'm waiting for is the green fallout. If prices fall people will use more electricity therefore more carbon. Where's Ms Lucas this morning, this is her big day.
"Tesco’s UK profit margin was 5.21 per cent last year. SSE, the UK’s second-biggest residential energy supplier, achieved 4.2 per cent. Guess which one Ed Miliband thinks is ripping off the public and should be compelled to freeze its prices? " http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article3878281.ece
@IsabelHardman: Ed's speech yesterday good. His answers on Today so far not so much. asked if he's a leftie, says "I think it's a truly One Nation approach"
@IsabelHardman: Surely to most voters he cld as well say "I think that's a truly yoghurt approach" or "it's a truly phonebox approach" &make as much sense
I think the great hero is being too frit. Don't take threats from the power companies, nationalise them. The state knows best. Add in a militant union leader and see those bills fall.
Instead of overpriced gas and electricity, we'll make do with cheap candles made from the fat of baby-eaters. Onwards and upwards.
@Plato You would expect Tesco's profit margin to be higher because its business is riskier. SSE could have a lower profit margin and still be ripping off the public.
Robin Brant @robindbrant ed m tells r4 that if there was a 'major shock' to the energy market then 'of course they could make their case' for govt help.
So HMT would bail out price restricted energy companies - bring back British Leyland FFS
The bit I'm waiting for is the green fallout. If prices fall people will use more electricity therefore more carbon. Where's Ms Lucas this morning, this is her big day.
"Tesco’s UK profit margin was 5.21 per cent last year. SSE, the UK’s second-biggest residential energy supplier, achieved 4.2 per cent. Guess which one Ed Miliband thinks is ripping off the public and should be compelled to freeze its prices? " http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article3878281.ece
The daft thing is if he really wanted to stop the public getting fleeced he could have ripped up some of the more ludicrous PPI deals for hospitals we can't use or firestation contol rooms no one wants. But then I suppose he'd have to admit labour screwed up.
Thoroughly predictable to see the chicken-lickens out in force today. They've gone into orbit over what is quite small thing from EdM, when the sensible approach was to play down the policy.
The Coalition has no problem whatsoever with the principle of price controls when it comes to private rail companies. The private utilities had no problem raising the cash for Blair's windfall levy.
Read my posts below. That headline means little without knowing turnover and investment levels, amongst other information (as JL says below).
Say they made £1 a year ago, and £1.74 this year. That headline would still be true. If they had a turnover of £100 million, that would be measly profits.
It's the old Royal Mail story. Putting the price of a stamp up by a penny could mean the difference between a loss of millions and a profit of millions, both of which were always reported gleefully by the media. Large amounts always make good headlines; the truth is buried within.
I wish you the best of luck defending them Josias. The have been taking the wee wee for years now, time to have a crack at them. Wages are not keeping up with prices. Working families are getting poorer.
I will always defend common sense. Your argument is: "Oooh, they're making profits, and people are hurting. I know nothing about the subject, but they're making profits from people. Those profits must be excessive because the numbers are large. They must be stopped!"
Which is intellectually moribund. You may or may not have a point, but it's not a position you have arrived at from intellectual rigour, but from political ideology.
If you read below, I have criticised the energy companies in a couple of ways. But the solutions to those problems are most certainly not those espoused by Miliband. And the risks of his approach are extremely great.
I don't know what you do for a living, but could such an argument be put forward to your industry?
On blackouts: it's worth mentioning they would be qualitatively different to blackouts from the 70s. Lots of people work online. Lots of people bank online, and shop online.
Thoroughly predictable to see the chicken-lickens out in force today. They've gone into orbit over what is quite small thing from EdM, when the sensible approach was to play down the policy.
The Coalition has no problem whatsoever with the principle of price controls when it comes to private rail companies. The private utilities had no problem raising the cash for Blair's windfall levy.
How's it a small thing Jonathan, it's Ed's story of the day, look at the media. If you're thinking it should be played down, then Ed shouldn't have played it up. I take it from your post you're not comfortable with the policy ?
Do you mean to tell me that a Labour government would put at risk my 20% capital gain and 6% pa dividend that National Grid and Scottish Power pay me just so some paupers can have affordable heating and light?
Thoroughly predictable to see the chicken-lickens out in force today. They've gone into orbit over what is quite small thing from EdM, when the sensible approach was to play down the policy.
The Coalition has no problem whatsoever with the principle of price controls when it comes to private rail companies. The private utilities had no problem raising the cash for Blair's windfall levy.
The problem here is that some of us are used to being given ideas like this, and told to think through the practicalities of them. Perhaps we shouldn't. It is Labour policies, and the point is to win votes, not whether it works or not. Sorry, I'll keep quiet now.
Someone has to finance my trips to the Riviera. If it's not the power companies (and water of course) I'd have to put money in companies with some risk unlike ex nationalized industries.
If Labour need money for 'schemes' what's wrong with extending the bedroom tax to two bedrooms?
Thoroughly predictable to see the chicken-lickens out in force today. They've gone into orbit over what is quite small thing from EdM, when the sensible approach was to play down the policy.
The Coalition has no problem whatsoever with the principle of price controls when it comes to private rail companies. The private utilities had no problem raising the cash for Blair's windfall levy.
How's it a small thing Jonathan, it's Ed's story of the day look at the media. If you're thinking it should be played down, then Ed shouldn't have played it up. I take it from your post you're not comfortable with the policy ?
Personally I think the world will keep spinning and the lights will stay on if energy companies hold their prices for just two years.
Someone has to finance my trips to the Riviera. If it's not the power companies (and water of course) I'd have to put money in companies that might be risky unlike ex nationalized industries.
If Labour need money for 'schemes' what's wrong with extending the bedroom tax to two bedrooms?
get out of utilities and into something less risky like fags, booze and guns; there's always a demand.
" ...This would be catastrophic when £110 billion is needed to replace Britain’s ageing generating capacity. Most of Britain’s nuclear power plants will be retired during the next decade, as will its old coal-fired plants. As things stand, there is insufficient new capacity coming online to replace them. In a global economy, investors have a choice where to invest. Mr Miliband’s imposition of price controls will deter them from the UK.
Energy companies are not to blame for prices. Prices are high because the cost of buying energy is high globally and because Britain’s housing stock is unusually old and inefficient. Also Mr Miliband, as Energy Secretary, oversaw a dash to decarbonise that piled costs on to the energy companies. Various environmental obligations and green taxes account for twice as much of the typical household gas bill as do energy suppliers’ profits.
If you want to see what happens when energy bills are frozen, look at California in 2001. A cap gave consumers no incentive to use energy carefully and no incentive for energy companies to invest in new capacity. Rolling blackouts resulted. The same will happen here if Mr Miliband is elected and pursues this insane policy." Paywall
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.
I've listened to Miliband on R4 and R5 this morning, and it's like listening to Brown again, he won't concede that his plans might have problems. It's "no more boom and bust" all over again. And to be honest it doesn't sound like he knows much about the subject, which considering he used to be the minister is worrying.
The might well have tested the price freeze with the public, but I'm not at all sure they've considered the potential consequences.
Read my posts below. That headline means little without knowing turnover and investment levels, amongst other information (as JL says below).
Say they made £1 a year ago, and £1.74 this year. That headline would still be true. If they had a turnover of £100 million, that would be measly profits.
It's the old Royal Mail story. Putting the price of a stamp up by a penny could mean the difference between a loss of millions and a profit of millions, both of which were always reported gleefully by the media. Large amounts always make good headlines; the truth is buried within.
I wish you the best of luck defending them Josias. The have been taking the wee wee for years now, time to have a crack at them. Wages are not keeping up with prices. Working families are getting poorer.
I will always defend common sense. Your argument is: "Oooh, they're making profits, and people are hurting. I know nothing about the subject, but they're making profits from people. Those profits must be excessive because the numbers are large. They must be stopped!"
Which is intellectually moribund. You may or may not have a point, but it's not a position you have arrived at from intellectual rigour, but from political ideology.
If you read below, I have criticised the energy companies in a couple of ways. But the solutions to those problems are most certainly not those espoused by Miliband. And the risks of his approach are extremely great.
I don't know what you do for a living, but could such an argument be put forward to your industry?
Thoroughly predictable to see the chicken-lickens out in force today. They've gone into orbit over what is quite small thing from EdM, when the sensible approach was to play down the policy.
The Coalition has no problem whatsoever with the principle of price controls when it comes to private rail companies. The private utilities had no problem raising the cash for Blair's windfall levy.
How's it a small thing Jonathan, it's Ed's story of the day look at the media. If you're thinking it should be played down, then Ed shouldn't have played it up. I take it from your post you're not comfortable with the policy ?
Personally I think the world will keep spinning and the lights will stay on if energy companies hold their prices for just two years.
Blair's windfall levy was more radical IMO.
The biggest issue will be the law of unintended consequences. Does our carbon output rise and we get slapped down by the EU and greenies ; do we get the odd blackout as we'll start using more energy if the price drops ; do private co.s walk on building new capacity so the govt. has to step in and then has no money for housing projects ? It's a gimmick and like most of his gimmicks Ed will back off when the going gets tough, just like that Union showdown that hasn't taken place.
Roger again has made a good point. Think of the greedy bastards.
Thanks to my lump-sum at retirement, I have had solar panels for more than two years (despite not being a Green),. They are paying me 46p a unit to produce electricity, even if I use it myself. And it is guaranteed to go up with inflation.
As Sunil says, Ed is green, Ed is great, Ed is all-seeing.
Robin Brant @robindbrant ed m tells r4 that if there was a 'major shock' to the energy market then 'of course they could make their case' for govt help.
So HMT would bail out price restricted energy companies - bring back British Leyland FFS
Wouldn't that also be illegal under EU law as state aid for businesses?
Ed doesn't know the first thing about how an economy works. That's scary.
" ...This would be catastrophic when £110 billion is needed to replace Britain’s ageing generating capacity. Most of Britain’s nuclear power plants will be retired during the next decade, as will its old coal-fired plants. As things stand, there is insufficient new capacity coming online to replace them. In a global economy, investors have a choice where to invest. Mr Miliband’s imposition of price controls will deter them from the UK.
Energy companies are not to blame for prices. Prices are high because the cost of buying energy is high globally and because Britain’s housing stock is unusually old and inefficient. Also Mr Miliband, as Energy Secretary, oversaw a dash to decarbonise that piled costs on to the energy companies. Various environmental obligations and green taxes account for twice as much of the typical household gas bill as do energy suppliers’ profits.
If you want to see what happens when energy bills are frozen, look at California in 2001. A cap gave consumers no incentive to use energy carefully and no incentive for energy companies to invest in new capacity. Rolling blackouts resulted. The same will happen here if Mr Miliband is elected and pursues this insane policy." Paywall
On blackouts: it's worth mentioning they would be qualitatively different to blackouts from the 70s. Lots of people work online. Lots of people bank online, and shop online.
And there's an issue I've mentioned before: modern equipment is much less hardened for spikes and drops in voltage. It *should* be hardened, but much consumer kit is not. A company I worked for had to test dozens of pieces of consumer equipment that used our kit from around the world, and some of it was startlingly prone to failing permanently after being subjected to a reduced voltage. Mainly this was down to cheap power-related components. Some failed at over 220V, well within the 230V-6%/+10% bounds for normal supply.
I'm not an electronics engineer, so I don't know the mechanisms by which components fail under lower voltages, but they did. (*) And don't get me started on EMC testing failures ...
(BTW, who amongst you knew that the standard supply voltage in the UK is actually 230V, not 240V?)
(*) I just asked Mrs J, who mentioned one of the permanent failure modes as being latch-ups and parasitic voltages. At which point my eyes glazed over. But if you want more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latchup
"Worry more about a windfall tax on overpaid medjah luvvies"
I worry about them all. I don't know if people realize how easy it is at the moment for the rich to get richer and richer without having to lift a finger. The idea that a Labour government might put this in jeopardy so those struggling can have a standard of living too is just anathema to the British way of life.
Bland alert: Ed on SKY News admitting he was Energy Secretary, the only nearly real job he has had. Wasn't very good at it and Eamonn Holmes politely grilling him. Ed talking about nationalised industries.
Mr. Jonathan, if prices are too high why not simply reduce or abolish greenist charges? That would enable the free market to keep working and deliver not merely frozen but reduced prices for people.
Sadly, I cannot see the Conservatives offering that either, but it'd be very popular.
I have concluded that much of the political class simply has no idea how the world really works. They live in a bubble. It is genuinely worrying that we are more likely than not to have Miliblob as PM in 18 months when he clearly has not even a junior school appreciation of the laws of supply and demand.
He sees very clearly the pain of high energy bills (good!) but has not a single idea about why bills are high and believes, incredibly, that price controls is a potential answer in a free market economy. He's not insane. He's just completely out of his depth.
Judging by the morning's press this farcically ill thought out energy plan is unravelling at supersonic speed. Does Ed not have any advisors?
I think MIliband has done more damage to the supply side of the energy problem than any other individual in Britain. If anyone is thinking of investing, those plans that can will surely being going on hold now.
If the energy companies hold their prices for just two years it will unleash the forces of armageddon.
Just wait if their is a policy change on bus passes.
I rather think it's the reverse, no-one can see how a temporary freeze is going to solve our energy issues, it will simply make them worse by throwing another level of uncertainty into the mix.
Ed hasn't answered anything on either energy or cost of living. If he really wanted to do something about the cost of living he could cut or freeze taxes without buggering up energy supply. But he won't because it's easy to make someone else pay up for his responsibilities.
Mr. Jonathan, if prices are too high why not simply reduce or abolish greenist charges? That would enable the free market to keep working and deliver not merely frozen but reduced prices for people.
Sadly, I cannot see the Conservatives offering that either, but it'd be very popular.
There isn't a free market in energy, it's just a mirage of marketing and finance. Whatever I do, It comes out of the same holes in the ground and appears at the same pipe.
Greetings, comrades and capitalist pigdogs (you shall be dealt with).
Already Comrade Miliband, endowed with undoubted expertise from his time as People's Commissar of Furnaces, has the Enemy of the People on the run!
The energy companies tremble at the name 'Miliband'! Now they realise their days of profit and profligacy are over! Once the British people enjoy the traditional, sustainable, renewable sources of energy (such as candles, oil lamps and hearths) the energy giants will see they have no place in modern Britain!
The climate change these industrialist brutes are responsible for will ensure their demise will not trouble us, for who could possibly need central heating in a country ravaged by the scorching summers and mild winters to which we are now accustomed?
Comrade Miliband is a Hero of the People, comrades, and soon he will have slain the energy giants who have stolen the wealth of the people for too long!
"get out of utilities and into something less risky like fags, booze and guns; there's always a demand."
Before you could say 'bazooka' Red would put a freeze on arms sales. I'm afraid he just doesn't get it. Read Jessop's posts. He knows why we investors need massive returns on our capital. He understands how much it costs to run several homes
Eamonn Holmes was on fire. "How red are you? Are you Manchester Utd red or just pink?" Hardly showing respect for someone who thinks he is going to be PM in 21 months. No wonder, Bland is just a figure of fun, not a serious politician. Did Len McCluskey write his speech?
A better buy would be Aggreko, the Scottish specialist in temporary power solutions and generation. They are market leaders in this and should do very well in blackouts!
Someone has to finance my trips to the Riviera. If it's not the power companies (and water of course) I'd have to put money in companies that might be risky unlike ex nationalized industries.
If Labour need money for 'schemes' what's wrong with extending the bedroom tax to two bedrooms?
get out of utilities and into something less risky like fags, booze and guns; there's always a demand.
"get out of utilities and into something less risky like fags, booze and guns; there's always a demand."
Before you could say 'bazooka' Red would put a freeze on arms sales. I'm afraid he just doesn't get it. Read Jessop's posts. He knows why we investors need massive returns on our capital. He understands how much it costs to run several homes
Roger if there's one thing I'd expect the shadow cabinet to understand it's the cost of running several houses simultaneously.
"get out of utilities and into something less risky like fags, booze and guns; there's always a demand."
Before you could say 'bazooka' Red would put a freeze on arms sales. I'm afraid he just doesn't get it. Read Jessop's posts. He knows why we investors need massive returns on our capital. He understands how much it costs to run several homes
It takes a lot to make Governments stop arm sales as they seem to get on rather well with some of these chaps. They may sell to person 1 but that person then supplies person 2. Sad that in Syria so much weaponry is from the West for example.
Mr. Jonathan, I entirely agree that the energy market needs changing to help encourage more providers which would foster competition.
I don't see how Miliband's Communist Revelation is supposed to achieve that. "Come to Britain, where we have green taxes and threaten price freezes if you make a profit!"
It's also the act of a rancid hypocrite to inflict green charges which hike prices and then complain prices are too high. The Coalition also deserves some censure for not axing the aforementioned charges, but Miliband is the reason we have them in the first place.
Read my posts below. That headline means little without knowing turnover and investment levels, amongst other information (as JL says below).
Say they made £1 a year ago, and £1.74 this year. That headline would still be true. If they had a turnover of £100 million, that would be measly profits.
It's the old Royal Mail story. Putting the price of a stamp up by a penny could mean the difference between a loss of millions and a profit of millions, both of which were always reported gleefully by the media. Large amounts always make good headlines; the truth is buried within.
I wish you the best of luck defending them Josias. The have been taking the wee wee for years now, time to have a crack at them. Wages are not keeping up with prices. Working families are getting poorer.
I will always defend common sense. Your argument is: "Oooh, they're making profits, and people are hurting. I know nothing about the subject, but they're making profits from people. Those profits must be excessive because the numbers are large. They must be stopped!"
Which is intellectually moribund. You may or may not have a point, but it's not a position you have arrived at from intellectual rigour, but from political ideology.
If you read below, I have criticised the energy companies in a couple of ways. But the solutions to those problems are most certainly not those espoused by Miliband. And the risks of his approach are extremely great.
I don't know what you do for a living, but could such an argument be put forward to your industry?
I can't read the article, but I think I remember the alleged (proved?) abuses. If they happened, they were wrong. But are you really saying the solution for them is what Ed Miliband proposed?
I'm sure Ed means well. He reminds me of when I was 17 or 18 years of age. Everything is black and white. Perhaps that explains the enthusiasm for votes at sixteen.
Yesterday EdM, the young rookie, stood on the tee, addressed the electorate and thought he needed a small Right slice to hit the fairway, but his Left arm twitch took precedence and he ended up in the rough, no hope of reaching the Green and leaving him with a bogie or two.
He was right to focus on cost reduction, but what he delivered showed lack of sound, coherent thought and careless preparation, in favour of a soundbite or two.
In order to compete in this world, the UK - after paying itself too much for decades - has to reduce its cost structure in the face of ever rising, demand-led commodity prices. At the same time the UK has to catch up with global education standards if we are not to fall further behind - not a word on education from Ed (part of Labour's sorry record).
Also nothing on reducing Council tax or increasing public sector efficiency and reformulating its pension costs (would upset the unions).
To control Energy and Food prices, the UK has to be self-sufficient in both - which it is not. After little investment in our Energy infrastructure over the last ten years, and happily lining up with the Green Energy dreamers in Brussels, now is not the time to discourage investment.
Ed could have laid waste to the "Green Energy" tax, but does not want to upset the EU. He showed his continuing ignorance of the gas market. Electricity has to be generated on-demand and is not able to be stored (unless there is a lot of reverse hydro when there is excess). So there is a wholesale gas price for each day for the bulk of use and a top-up spot price which is at the mercy of demand and market speculators.
In California when they tried price regulation, the electricity companies abandoned the more-regulated wholesale market and switched to the spot market price which was not regulated. How would Ed handle that - would each house/premises have a daily ration of electricity? - reminds me of Heath's 3-day week.
Mr. Jonathan, I entirely agree that the energy market needs changing to help encourage more providers which would foster competition.
I don't see how Miliband's Communist Revelation is supposed to achieve that. "Come to Britain, where we have green taxes and threaten price freezes if you make a profit!"
I just don't see how EdM change is that big. It will probably lead to energy companies doing it voluntarily anyway.
A genuine free market in energy would be fascinating. Re-imagine the fracking debate, if the locals in Balcombe could benefit directly from their energy and save ££££.
"get out of utilities and into something less risky like fags, booze and guns; there's always a demand."
Before you could say 'bazooka' Red would put a freeze on arms sales. I'm afraid he just doesn't get it. Read Jessop's posts. He knows why we investors need massive returns on our capital. He understands how much it costs to run several homes
I don't really understand what it costs to run several homes, although I can guess. We've only got one home (and we only bought that last year). I've only got one car, one wife, no kids, and no cats or dogs. (will Tim be friends with me now?)
I do, however, have four tents. Although the energy requirements of a tent are seemingly low, you wouldn't say that if you had lug the *?&^%& thing up a mountain.
Irrespective of his speech yesterday - this was interesting
"Did he realise this is an emergency? Labour critics here are openly withering about him, while his admirers shuffle their feet and change the subject... On Monday I went to The Times’s fringe meeting, where our principal guest was a senior Labour stalwart, Angela Eagle, MP. Peter Kellner, of YouGov, told the audience some astonishingly hard truths about the polling data; my fellow columnist Phil Collins told them some even harder truths about the failure of their party’s message... Nobody said a word in Mr Miliband’s defence.
So I piped up with the suggestion that Ed Miliband’s image nationally was neutral rather than negative: a bit of a blank space. He can fill the blank. Ideas and actions that were brave and right — like facing down the trade unions over their links with Labour — could alter the way we saw him. Or so I suggested to the fringe. And the response? Not a peep in Ed’s defence — not from anyone, audience or panel. Here in Brighton, whenever and wherever I’ve ventured a little hopeful interest in the possibilities of Mr Miliband’s leadership, people have smiled pityingly and replied: “You don’t know Ed.” http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article3878278.ece
Now when we PB-Tories moan about perceived BBC bias, we are being pathetic....
Mehdi Hasan@mehdirhasan2m Wonder if the Today prog will get 2 columnists to come on & BOTH be v negative about Cameron, after the PM's speech next week. #justsaying
Kamal Ahmed @kamalahmed1 RT @joelhillssky Election some way off, Labour may not win, price cap policy is vague BUT Centrica shares (3%) and SSE (2%) down today
Comments
Say they made £1 a year ago, and £1.74 this year. That headline would still be true. If they had a turnover of £100 million, that would be measly profits.
It's the old Royal Mail story. Putting the price of a stamp up by a penny could mean the difference between a loss of millions and a profit of millions, both of which were always reported gleefully by the media. Large amounts always make good headlines; the truth is buried within.
@politicshome: .@Ed_Miliband tells @BBCNews his development plan means "as the ultimate sanction a compulsory purchase order".
I'm trying to find the article I read this in - it was very good.
He sees very clearly the pain of high energy bills (good!) but has not a single idea about why bills are high and believes, incredibly, that price controls is a potential answer in a free market economy. He's not insane. He's just completely out of his depth.
Judging by the morning's press this farcically ill thought out energy plan is unravelling at supersonic speed. Does Ed not have any advisors?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/millions-in-fuel-poverty-as-energy-bosses-pocket-164m-payout-8551461.html
You can't control prices in a global wholesale market - what happens if the price really goes up - will the Treasury make up the difference? It's nonsense on stilts. No business is going to stay in the UK or invest TENS OF BILLIONS with an attitude like this.
Already Comrade Miliband, endowed with undoubted expertise from his time as People's Commissar of Furnaces, has the Enemy of the People on the run!
The energy companies tremble at the name 'Miliband'! Now they realise their days of profit and profligacy are over! Once the British people enjoy the traditional, sustainable, renewable sources of energy (such as candles, oil lamps and hearths) the energy giants will see they have no place in modern Britain!
The climate change these industrialist brutes are responsible for will ensure their demise will not trouble us, for who could possibly need central heating in a country ravaged by the scorching summers and mild winters to which we are now accustomed?
Comrade Miliband is a Hero of the People, comrades, and soon he will have slain the energy giants who have stolen the wealth of the people for too long!
Sometimes a good idea falls from this. Hopefully the baby eaters will use it. Reduction in taxes? Brilliant.
Spin this yarn as much as you like,it won`t happen.
@politicshome: Ed M asked to name another country that's implemented a price freeze - "I’m focused on our system...that’s what we’ve got to sort out."
@ITVLauraK: @politicshome Belgium tried it last year - We found that out last night - bit weird if labour hasn't looked at the example
The difference between a headline and a workable policy. Hard graft. Alien to Miliband.
Seriously though, how does a VAT cut on electricity distort behaviour in the common market? I can't run an extension cord to France to get my power, for instance.
Dear energy company,
You have the choice between fixed prices in the UK regardless of costs, or maximising your profits in any other market in the World. After 18 months, the new market in the UK will be the most regulated on Earth.
Sign here please...
"Immediately after the speech, Len McCluskey, the General Secretary of Unite, was able to say that there was nothing in the speech that he did not like. It is surely axiomatic that if Mr McCluskey liked it that much, it must have been unpopular in the rest of the country. It is probable that the most eye-catching proposal — the pledge to freeze energy prices for two years from 2015 — will be popular among families understandably worried by high bills. However, it is hard to think of an instance of price controls working in the past and no reason to suppose that they will work in the future. The more likely outcome is that investment levels will fall and that blackouts come a little closer..." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article3878255.ece
The bastards.
@IsabelHardman: Surely to most voters he cld as well say "I think that's a truly yoghurt approach" or "it's a truly phonebox approach" &make as much sense
I think the great hero is being too frit. Don't take threats from the power companies, nationalise them. The state knows best. Add in a militant union leader and see those bills fall.
Instead of overpriced gas and electricity, we'll make do with cheap candles made from the fat of baby-eaters. Onwards and upwards.
Caroline Flint said that was not important and Ed has already said that was different.
They weren't doing it "One Nation" stylee obviously
ed m tells r4 that if there was a 'major shock' to the energy market then 'of course they could make their case' for govt help.
So HMT would bail out price restricted energy companies - bring back British Leyland FFS
The Coalition has no problem whatsoever with the principle of price controls when it comes to private rail companies.
The private utilities had no problem raising the cash for Blair's windfall levy.
Which is intellectually moribund. You may or may not have a point, but it's not a position you have arrived at from intellectual rigour, but from political ideology.
If you read below, I have criticised the energy companies in a couple of ways. But the solutions to those problems are most certainly not those espoused by Miliband. And the risks of his approach are extremely great.
I don't know what you do for a living, but could such an argument be put forward to your industry?
Worry more about a windfall tax on overpaid medjah luvvies, sauce for the goose etc...
Someone has to finance my trips to the Riviera. If it's not the power companies (and water of course) I'd have to put money in companies with some risk unlike ex nationalized industries.
If Labour need money for 'schemes' what's wrong with extending the bedroom tax to two bedrooms?
Blair's windfall levy was more radical IMO.
Banks which won't lend to us threatening to move to the Far East if they can't keep their bonuses.
Large companies threatening not to invest here unless we lower corporation tax.
Ed Miliband admitting in his speech, that our manufacturing industry can't compete with China.
Population of UK spitting blood that their living standards aren't continually rising.
Welcome to UK 2013. A fun place to govern.
Energy companies are not to blame for prices. Prices are high because the cost of buying energy is high globally and because Britain’s housing stock is unusually old and inefficient. Also Mr Miliband, as Energy Secretary, oversaw a dash to decarbonise that piled costs on to the energy companies. Various environmental obligations and green taxes account for twice as much of the typical household gas bill as do energy suppliers’ profits.
If you want to see what happens when energy bills are frozen, look at California in 2001. A cap gave consumers no incentive to use energy carefully and no incentive for energy companies to invest in new capacity. Rolling blackouts resulted. The same will happen here if Mr Miliband is elected and pursues this insane policy." Paywall
The might well have tested the price freeze with the public, but I'm not at all sure they've considered the potential consequences.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9490712/Energy-companies-overcharge-customers-by-600m.html
Roger again has made a good point. Think of the greedy bastards.
Thanks to my lump-sum at retirement, I have had solar panels for more than two years (despite not being a Green),. They are paying me 46p a unit to produce electricity, even if I use it myself. And it is guaranteed to go up with inflation.
As Sunil says, Ed is green, Ed is great, Ed is all-seeing.
Ed doesn't know the first thing about how an economy works. That's scary.
Do you actually believe this drivel?
I'm not an electronics engineer, so I don't know the mechanisms by which components fail under lower voltages, but they did. (*) And don't get me started on EMC testing failures ...
(BTW, who amongst you knew that the standard supply voltage in the UK is actually 230V, not 240V?)
(*) I just asked Mrs J, who mentioned one of the permanent failure modes as being latch-ups and parasitic voltages. At which point my eyes glazed over. But if you want more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latchup
If the energy companies hold their prices for just two years it will unleash the forces of armageddon.
Just wait if their is a policy change on bus passes.
The Mirror #MadeUThink Manifesto - explained using cat GIFs
21 Sep 2013 04:00
Our boss has outlined his vision in print copies of the Mirror. Here it is again for the digital generation... with added MIAOW
Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lloyd-embleys-mirror-madeuthink-manifesto-2280019#ixzz2ft6OrJXU
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
I worry about them all. I don't know if people realize how easy it is at the moment for the rich to get richer and richer without having to lift a finger. The idea that a Labour government might put this in jeopardy so those struggling can have a standard of living too is just anathema to the British way of life.
Doesn't Miliband understand this?
Sadly, I cannot see the Conservatives offering that either, but it'd be very popular.
15% of energy bills going to renewables to produce 0.4% of energy & #Miliband did this. #EdDavey carries on the madness.
I think MIliband has done more damage to the supply side of the energy problem than any other individual in Britain. If anyone is thinking of investing, those plans that can will surely being going on hold now.
Ed hasn't answered anything on either energy or cost of living. If he really wanted to do something about the cost of living he could cut or freeze taxes without buggering up energy supply. But he won't because it's easy to make someone else pay up for his responsibilities.
"get out of utilities and into something less risky like fags, booze and guns; there's always a demand."
Before you could say 'bazooka' Red would put a freeze on arms sales. I'm afraid he just doesn't get it. Read Jessop's posts. He knows why we investors need massive returns on our capital. He understands how much it costs to run several homes
Keeping energy prices down is akin to the Roman idea of bread and circuses. We had the circus last year, so I suppose it was time for the bread.
Do your own research etc!
Mr. Jonathan, I entirely agree that the energy market needs changing to help encourage more providers which would foster competition.
I don't see how Miliband's Communist Revelation is supposed to achieve that. "Come to Britain, where we have green taxes and threaten price freezes if you make a profit!"
It's also the act of a rancid hypocrite to inflict green charges which hike prices and then complain prices are too high. The Coalition also deserves some censure for not axing the aforementioned charges, but Miliband is the reason we have them in the first place.
Really?
Does this make me incredibly sad that the above makes me happy, or have I tapped into the public consciousness that Ed is crap?
I'm sure Ed means well. He reminds me of when I was 17 or 18 years of age. Everything is black and white. Perhaps that explains the enthusiasm for votes at sixteen.
He was right to focus on cost reduction, but what he delivered showed lack of sound, coherent thought and careless preparation, in favour of a soundbite or two.
In order to compete in this world, the UK - after paying itself too much for decades - has to reduce its cost structure in the face of ever rising, demand-led commodity prices. At the same time the UK has to catch up with global education standards if we are not to fall further behind - not a word on education from Ed (part of Labour's sorry record).
Also nothing on reducing Council tax or increasing public sector efficiency and reformulating its pension costs (would upset the unions).
To control Energy and Food prices, the UK has to be self-sufficient in both - which it is not. After little investment in our Energy infrastructure over the last ten years, and happily lining up with the Green Energy dreamers in Brussels, now is not the time to discourage investment.
Ed could have laid waste to the "Green Energy" tax, but does not want to upset the EU. He showed his continuing ignorance of the gas market. Electricity has to be generated on-demand and is not able to be stored (unless there is a lot of reverse hydro when there is excess). So there is a wholesale gas price for each day for the bulk of use and a top-up spot price which is at the mercy of demand and market speculators.
In California when they tried price regulation, the electricity companies abandoned the more-regulated wholesale market and switched to the spot market price which was not regulated. How would Ed handle that - would each house/premises have a daily ration of electricity? - reminds me of Heath's 3-day week.
I take back all the bad things I've said about conhome in the past.
A genuine free market in energy would be fascinating. Re-imagine the fracking debate, if the locals in Balcombe could benefit directly from their energy and save ££££.
And we should frack on.
I do, however, have four tents. Although the energy requirements of a tent are seemingly low, you wouldn't say that if you had lug the *?&^%& thing up a mountain.
The policy will then be redundant.
"Did he realise this is an emergency? Labour critics here are openly withering about him, while his admirers shuffle their feet and change the subject... On Monday I went to The Times’s fringe meeting, where our principal guest was a senior Labour stalwart, Angela Eagle, MP. Peter Kellner, of YouGov, told the audience some astonishingly hard truths about the polling data; my fellow columnist Phil Collins told them some even harder truths about the failure of their party’s message... Nobody said a word in Mr Miliband’s defence.
So I piped up with the suggestion that Ed Miliband’s image nationally was neutral rather than negative: a bit of a blank space. He can fill the blank. Ideas and actions that were brave and right — like facing down the trade unions over their links with Labour — could alter the way we saw him. Or so I suggested to the fringe. And the response? Not a peep in Ed’s defence — not from anyone, audience or panel. Here in Brighton, whenever and wherever I’ve ventured a little hopeful interest in the possibilities of Mr Miliband’s leadership, people have smiled pityingly and replied: “You don’t know Ed.” http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article3878278.ece
Mehdi Hasan@mehdirhasan2m
Wonder if the Today prog will get 2 columnists to come on & BOTH be v negative about Cameron, after the PM's speech next week. #justsaying
RT @joelhillssky Election some way off, Labour may not win, price cap policy is vague BUT Centrica shares (3%) and SSE (2%) down today