(4) They have something up their sleeves to announce next week. George Osborne has already commented on the cost of living crisis this month and said that something must be done. It wouldn't be at all surprising to see a new policy unveiled on this front by the Conservatives next week.
In which case, we'll see three point turns from all the usual partisans in opposite directions, much to the amusement of us few unaffiliated posters on here.
You do sound a bit overwrought, if I may say so. He's a fund manager who has a lot of shares in Centrica which have lost some value. I'm neither surprised he's upset, nor inclined to take him as a disinterested observer. We don't have hyperinflation and a price freeze for 20 months is not the apocalypse that he suggests.
Bingo. Trash the messenger, who happens to be the most respected and successful long-term fund manager in the UK.
It is of course not the price freeze for 20 months that is the main problem, it is (as you well know) the regulatory uncertainty and the possibility that one arbitrary freeze might be followed by another, plus the fact that Ed has explicitly said he wants to break up the current companies. You think they're going to commit to investing many tens of billions when they might be broken up in three years' time?
@DavidL - Well, quite. I can understand why people didn't believe me (or pretended not to believe me) when I made exactly the same points, but anyone who knows anything about the world of finance - and especially utilities - will know who Neil Woodford is.
Put your hands over your ears, Labour supporters. Say la-la-la. Go on, let's hear it - you're going to trash Neil Woodford's reputation next, aren't you?
You do sound a bit overwrought, if I may say so. He's a fund manager who has a lot of shares in Centrica which have lost some value. I'm neither surprised he's upset, nor inclined to take him as a disinterested observer. We don't have hyperinflation and a price freeze for 20 months is not the apocalypse that he suggests.
It might be more interesting to hear the Conservative view. They're very quiet. There seem to be three possible positions:
(1) They favour energy prices going up in 2015-17 so as to provide money for investment, gauranteed supply, dividends for widows, and so on - implicitly the position of many here, who say they fear terrible consequences if the increases are blocked.
(2) They hope in a passive sort of way that the prices won't go up but are happy to leave it to the market, after all what business is it of the Government whether energy is expensive or not, except as a matter of detached interest? That seems the default conservative view - but is it what they in fact are going to say?
SSE will be a profitable company for the next couple of years, even if the price freeze happens. Any squeeze will force out some of the weaker competitors and give SSE a more secure long term position. It will be quite a bar to new entrants, and can probably be managed by wage restraint within the company and mothballing some investment. They will then be able to put up their prices, after the freeze ends.
SSE will be profitable in the long term. It is the short term that presents the problem, but it is a good stock still. I am planning to keep mine long term in my ISA.
Roger
You cannot judge the value of a share on its dividend policy alone.
An investor's return is a combination of capital appreciation plus dividend yield.
Energy companies will want to attract long term investors to finance highly capital intensive investments so will pursue a policy of paying relatively high dividends.
With their 'blue chip' status and non-discretionary business (consumers are always going to need energy supplies), energy companies try to make their shares more like fixed income bonds (i.e. the shares offer low but steady capital growth and high dividends).
Threatening to mess around with the industry and its revenue streams is creating an impact on the value of energy company shares which is exactly the opposite of that expected by investors. Hence the capital flight today from UK energy stocks.
Shareholders will have lost a lot of money today and will be far more cautious in entrusting their funds to the UK energy sector in future.
And the net effect in the market will be higher cost of capital, less investment and employment, and, higher consumer prices or blackouts.
The mindset of the Labour loyalists at present is very much a tribal one at present, and drawn well within the bounds of the previous Labour party. Bobajob is politer than most in shrugging off the qualms of an uber-Blairite (but usually loyal Labour supporter).
Others are less polite. Sunny Hundal has just retweeted the following from Bonnie Greer:
"What better accolade for #edmiliband than to be attacked by Peter Mandleson & Digby Jones? C'mon Tone, make it a hat trick. #DreadEd"
Wanting the opposition of Labour's most electorally successful Prime Minister is, erm, surprising. But Labour at present are following a small tent strategy. Only the purest are welcome.
If Labour can freeze domestic energy prices, why can't they freeze motor fuel prices?
Well exactly. And why focus on energy? There are arguably more just targets.
Still Ed's got 20 months to come up with more "bright" ideas. I don't suppose he will disappoint.
Exactly. It reminds me of Osbourne's "cunning plan" of raising the IHT threshold to £1M. It was popular in the short-term, but long-term it led to the meme that only millionaires should pay any tax, not just IHT. People will eventually demand, if you can freeze the price of X, why not Y and Z too?
...osbornes madness of a legal challenge on bank bonuses,day after ed was telling ,party of the well off. ;-)
It is not madness for George to mount a legal challenge on bonuses. He has already won (at least to interim judgement stage) five cases he has brought to the ECJ on new EU rules affecting the UK Financial Sector.
Consider the following table for Bankers in the EU27 earning more than €1 million p.a.
If the treasury were to lose the income tax revenues on UK bankers it would have to find more than £3 billion of incomes elsewhere to tax. That will be you paying more taxes, Tyke.
You may be right Avery,but that wasn't how it was reported on the tv news,they made it look like tories sticking up for they rich banker friends(especially on sky news with randall),tories losing media war again I'm afraid.
Of course it will be spun like that by the media, Tyke. It is the obvious line to take. No one gains plaudits for defending bankers bonuses!
It should be noted that these are 2012 figures and although the proportions have remained unchanged vis-a-vis Britain vs, Rest of EU, the total value of bank bonuses and high pay has fallen in each of the three years of the Osborne government. Also the amount of bonus payments where payment is deferred to later years has increased giving greater incentives to long term gains and reclawable reward if performance declines after the year of award.
I am not defending the vast disparity between top bankers pay and average remuneration but the way to solve a problem like this is to change culture and remuneration gradually over years rather than impose sudden shocks.
Osborne has the difficult task of ensuring the City (and UK) remains competitive so that financial services companies and banks locate here; protecting the tax revenues which derive from this dominance; and, at the same time, reform the system to deter 'casino trading' and to slowly close the gap between bankers pay and incomes in the rest of the economy.
(2) They hope in a passive sort of way that the prices won't go up but are happy to leave it to the market, after all what business is it of the Government whether energy is expensive or not, except as a matter of detached interest? That seems the default conservative view - but is it what they in fact are going to say?
Nick, I guess the problem is that the price of electricity is determined by two factors:
1. The world market for oil, gas and coal
2. The degree to which you subsidise renewables (and I include carbon pricing and ROCs in this category).
The dominant cause of price rises to date has been the rise in energy prices since 2000. A secondary reason is that we previously bought our gas on long-term contracts at a substantial discount to oil; the world has now changed, and we source a lot in the LNG market, where prices are high.
The funny bit is that the rise in the price of conventional fuels makes subsidies to green energy largely unnecessary. Solar is becoming (admittedly not in the UK) competitive with traditional fuel sources in large parts of the world.
The only way in which the government can hope to get the price of our electricity down is: a) to reduce the subsidy schemes for wind (and in particular off-shore wind) b) encourage energy conservation efforts c) encourage natural gas exploration and drilling in the UK
Of course, as I've pointed out many times before, finding gas in the UK will have a negligible effect on utility bills. It will have a positive impact of the Balance of Trade, on employment, and on tax receipts, and is therefore a Good Thing (TM).
The mindset of the Labour loyalists at present is very much a tribal one at present, and drawn well within the bounds of the previous Labour party. Bobajob is politer than most in shrugging off the qualms of an uber-Blairite (but usually loyal Labour supporter).
Others are less polite. Sunny Hundal has just retweeted the following from Bonnie Greer:
"What better accolade for #edmiliband than to be attacked by Peter Mandleson & Digby Jones? C'mon Tone, make it a hat trick. #DreadEd"
Wanting the opposition of Labour's most electorally successful Prime Minister is, erm, surprising. But Labour at present are following a small tent strategy. Only the purest are welcome.
Not true - the party is simply trying to pick a fight with a bunch of energy companies who have been profiteering for years.
How will miliband and labour do that with out it looking like a climb down,it will seriously damage labour if they back down from this now ?
Good question. Had they asked me, they wouldn't have gone down this particular cul-de-sac.
Can't see it happening,it would kill labour and ed's leadership.
He's gambled big,he's got to go through with it.
As reality sets in and the Tories have their say with the same lines I suggested earlier Ed will either end up looking stupid and u-turning or will go into the election with a disaster policy.
A price freeze from election day until the end of 2016 sounds good on paper but the reality of the situation is more complex, and even now people are beginning to realise what it means. The first thing people would see after a cursory google search would be the California blackouts from what was essentially the same policy. Without nationalisation you can't force companies to provide goods and services at below cost and Ed seems to have ignored or is looking for nationalisation through the back door.
The mindset of the Labour loyalists at present is very much a tribal one at present, and drawn well within the bounds of the previous Labour party. Bobajob is politer than most in shrugging off the qualms of an uber-Blairite (but usually loyal Labour supporter).
Others are less polite. Sunny Hundal has just retweeted the following from Bonnie Greer:
"What better accolade for #edmiliband than to be attacked by Peter Mandleson & Digby Jones? C'mon Tone, make it a hat trick. #DreadEd"
Wanting the opposition of Labour's most electorally successful Prime Minister is, erm, surprising. But Labour at present are following a small tent strategy. Only the purest are welcome.
Not true - the party is simply trying to pick a fight with a bunch of energy companies who have been profiteering for years.
It is of course not the price freeze for 20 months that is the main problem, it is (as you well know) the regulatory uncertainty and the possibility that one arbitrary freeze might be followed by another
...except that Miliband has explicitly ruled that out.
, plus the fact that Ed has explicitly said he wants to break up the current companies. You think they're going to commit to investing many tens of billions when they might be broken up in three years' time?
If it adds intrinsic value, certainly - the value will go into the component parts if they're broken up. On the basis of your argument, it would never be possible to break up a quasi-monopoly, since we would always fear the short-term impact on decision-making. Sometimes it's necessary.
However, we make progress in elucidating the Conservative view. You imply you favour retaining the current Big Six structure in the energy market, but you seem to have forgotten to answer the question on your policy on prices. Do you hope there will be a 2015-17 price increase by these (fortunately optimally-designed) six companies, for the reasons you've set out in various posts today (benefits for shareholders including pension funds, possible investment, and so on) or do you think it would be regrettable but not a matter for the Government?
Ashcroft has done a lot of work for the Conservative Party in the past but he was not entirely straight with them about his tax status. In return the Party has not brought him into the centre of their current operation. Ashcroft has taken a bitter self-pitying stance recently.
Only when Labour are in power. When the Tories are it's all very shameful and 100% of their profits should be confiscated by the state.
The basic problem is as you pointed out previously which has unsurprisingly been ignored. The UK government does not control the wholesale price of energy and around 80% of our energy is derived from wholesale markets. One way to fix this would basically be for the government to put £10bn up for nuclear power starting tomorrow and just sell it at a loss to Centrica once it's finished. However, that is not a very efficient way of going about things.
The easiest and best way would be to remove the feed-in tariffs and let the market correct itself.
The mindset of the Labour loyalists at present is very much a tribal one at present, and drawn well within the bounds of the previous Labour party. Bobajob is politer than most in shrugging off the qualms of an uber-Blairite (but usually loyal Labour supporter).
Others are less polite. Sunny Hundal has just retweeted the following from Bonnie Greer:
"What better accolade for #edmiliband than to be attacked by Peter Mandleson & Digby Jones? C'mon Tone, make it a hat trick. #DreadEd"
Wanting the opposition of Labour's most electorally successful Prime Minister is, erm, surprising. But Labour at present are following a small tent strategy. Only the purest are welcome.
Not true - the party is simply trying to pick a fight with a bunch of energy companies who have been profiteering for years.
The mindset of the Labour loyalists at present is very much a tribal one at present, and drawn well within the bounds of the previous Labour party. Bobajob is politer than most in shrugging off the qualms of an uber-Blairite (but usually loyal Labour supporter).
Others are less polite. Sunny Hundal has just retweeted the following from Bonnie Greer:
"What better accolade for #edmiliband than to be attacked by Peter Mandleson & Digby Jones? C'mon Tone, make it a hat trick. #DreadEd"
Wanting the opposition of Labour's most electorally successful Prime Minister is, erm, surprising. But Labour at present are following a small tent strategy. Only the purest are welcome.
Not true - the party is simply trying to pick a fight with a bunch of energy companies who have been profiteering for years.
If Labour truly believe that the UK energy suppliers have been using their oligopolist market dominance to make excess profits (which I assume is what you mean by 'profiteering') then the proper course of action is to refer the industry to the Competition Commission.
This has not been a course of action proposed by Miliband.
It is of course not the price freeze for 20 months that is the main problem, it is (as you well know) the regulatory uncertainty and the possibility that one arbitrary freeze might be followed by another, plus the fact that Ed has explicitly said he wants to break up the current companies. You think they're going to commit to investing many tens of billions when they might be broken up in three years' time?
I think everyone knows this is a short-term pre-election pander, obviously it won't be followed by another freeze.
Unbundling is obviously far more consequential, because it's a proper policy. You can argue whether it's a good or bad policy, but I don't think it's unreasonable for the opposition to have one, and if they don't get in there's a good chance the Tories will do the same thing. Although businesses would obviously prefer stability to change, an asset worth building now should generally still be worth building however you slice and dice the ownership of it.
"A more serious problem is practical: these standards are ethical more than they are technical and will be tough to enforce. How does one legislate according to whether things smell right and if the public is riled up?...
The risk is, after Lord Mandelson's intervention, that this becomes another story about Labour infighting. In any case, as Harold Wilson could have told his current successor, temporary price controls do not an economic strategy make. Mr Miliband now has to counter the accusation always levelled at social democrats: that they know how to spend money, but not how to make it. To counter this, Labour should do two things. The first is rhetorical, which is to stress that the party wants to attack certain antisocial behaviours by companies, rather than industries. The second is to do with industrial policy: how can the party encourage good behaviour?
This last point has been a problem for Labour, partly because all main parties now talk so much about the virtues of industrial policy that they all sound the same. Labour badly needs a distinctive offer. It should consider cutting taxes for those companies which source and make more in the UK. Ed Balls should cut national insurance contributions for companies that recruit workers and keep them for more than a couple of years. And Chuka Umunna should think about how to use the nationalised banks to channel credit to strategic industries and regions. Mr Miliband made a satisfactory splash this week. Now he and his team need to keep putting in the effort and the hard thinking."
(4) They have something up their sleeves to announce next week. George Osborne has already commented on the cost of living crisis this month and said that something must be done. It wouldn't be at all surprising to see a new policy unveiled on this front by the Conservatives next week.
In which case, we'll see three point turns from all the usual partisans in opposite directions, much to the amusement of us few unaffiliated posters on here.
I suspect you are right. What is clear is that austerity is of the table. The next election won't be fought on debt/deficit because the public still don't know the difference and would be shocked if they discovered that debt was still spiralling up. The Tories can still win on growth, so expect a tax cut.*
*I realise it's possible to increase the tax take by cutting rates, but the Laffer Curve isn't an easy sell.
Will you have the grace to admit that Dan Hodges was right if its David Cameron that is standing on the steps of No10 Downing Street on the day after the GE Surby?
To continue on from the point that @Foxinsoxuk made on the previous thread about this Labour Conference heralding the death of New Labour. I think that this Labour Conference also saw Ed Miliband quietly capitulate to the big Labour Union donors after picking a fight with them earlier this year. I fully expect to see Ed Miliband now quietly shelve that fight while his team and the Unions work out a face saving all around deal that will talk big but see little change to the current set up.
Ed Miliband will now turn his guns on big business until that strategy finally bites him on the behookie as well. Its going to be interesting to if Ed Miliband's internal opponents decide to leave him in place until after the next GE even if the polls swing decisively against the party because they cannot agree on one clear choice as his replacement.
Are you going to quote Dan Hodges on the Friday when Ed stands in front of No.10 ?
(4) They have something up their sleeves to announce next week. George Osborne has already commented on the cost of living crisis this month and said that something must be done. It wouldn't be at all surprising to see a new policy unveiled on this front by the Conservatives next week.
In which case, we'll see three point turns from all the usual partisans in opposite directions, much to the amusement of us few unaffiliated posters on here.
I suspect you are right. What is clear is that austerity is of the table. The next election won't be fought on debt/deficit because the public still don't know the difference and would be shocked if they discovered that debt was still spiralling up. The Tories can still win on growth, so expect a tax cut.*
*I realise it's possible to increase the tax take by cutting rates, but the Laffer Curve isn't an easy sell.
Dead wrong. The Conservatives are going to beat Ed Miliband around the head with austerity and his inability to make tough choices all the way to the general election. It's going to be brutal.
The mindset of the Labour loyalists at present is very much a tribal one at present, and drawn well within the bounds of the previous Labour party. Bobajob is politer than most in shrugging off the qualms of an uber-Blairite (but usually loyal Labour supporter).
Others are less polite. Sunny Hundal has just retweeted the following from Bonnie Greer:
"What better accolade for #edmiliband than to be attacked by Peter Mandleson & Digby Jones? C'mon Tone, make it a hat trick. #DreadEd"
Wanting the opposition of Labour's most electorally successful Prime Minister is, erm, surprising. But Labour at present are following a small tent strategy. Only the purest are welcome.
Not true - the party is simply trying to pick a fight with a bunch of energy companies who have been profiteering for years.
If Labour truly believe that the UK energy suppliers have been using their oligopolist market dominance to make excess profits (which I assume is what you mean by 'profiteering') then the proper course of action is to refer the industry to the Competition Commission.
This has not been a course of action proposed by Miliband.
What are your explanations for this?
He wants to have a crack at them himself rather than running to teacher. Good night all.
They would have had to admit that the system they set up (indeed that Miliband was personally in charge of for some years) wasnt working?
I think it quite likely that Cameron will make a referral to the Competion Commission. A report and recommendations would not likely be available much before 2015 so I don't anticipate any action taken as result before the General Election. But it would protect all parties involved in this battle: the energy industry, the current and next (whoever it is) government and the consumer.
One impact that CC reviews have on industries is that the competition issues become identified during the course of the review and industry participants often take action to resolve them before they are forced to do so by recommendations in the final report and subsequent government action.
The benefit of an independent review in an industry like energy where government intervention is already embedded is that an objective view can be taken on all price determinants.
By the way, the price that the government has guaranteed EDF, so it will build new nuclear in the UK, is about the same as you get if you build a big windfarm.
To counter this, Labour should do two things. The first is rhetorical, which is to stress that the party wants to attack certain antisocial behaviours by companies, rather than industries. The second is to do with industrial policy: how can the party encourage good behaviour?
Two assumptions which need challenging. Have the energy companies behaved antisocially and exhibited bad behaviour?
If I were an energy company executive I would go further and label these claims as "accusations" which need proving in a court of law or other competent quasi-judicial forum.
The fact that energy prices are high and have risen rapidly is not evidence of wrongdoing. There will be many factors influencing prices, some entirely beyond the control of the suppliers.
Labour badly needs a distinctive offer. It should consider cutting taxes for those companies which source and make more in the UK. Ed Balls should cut national insurance contributions for companies that recruit workers and keep them for more than a couple of years. And Chuka Umunna should think about how to use the nationalised banks to channel credit to strategic industries and regions.
It is about time solicitors' partnerships were reincorporated and floated. Then Dr Sox could transfer his SSE holdings into firms specialising in competition law. The prospects of rapid growth in litigation make for an unparalleled investment opportunity.
To counter this, Labour should do two things. The first is rhetorical, which is to stress that the party wants to attack certain antisocial behaviours by companies, rather than industries. The second is to do with industrial policy: how can the party encourage good behaviour?
Two assumptions which need challenging. Have the energy companies behaved antisocially and exhibited bad behaviour?
If I were an energy company executive I would go further and label these claims as "accusations" which need proving in a court of law or other competent quasi-judicial forum.
The fact that energy prices are high and have risen rapidly is not evidence of wrongdoing. There will be many factors influencing prices, some entirely beyond the control of the suppliers.
Labour badly needs a distinctive offer. It should consider cutting taxes for those companies which source and make more in the UK. Ed Balls should cut national insurance contributions for companies that recruit workers and keep them for more than a couple of years. And Chuka Umunna should think about how to use the nationalised banks to channel credit to strategic industries and regions.
It is about time solicitors' partnerships were reincorporated and floated. Then Dr Sox could transfer his SSE holdings into firms specialising in competition law. The prospects of rapid growth in litigation make for an unparalleled investment opportunity.
GIN, I totally agree. Its a shame we don't still have the instantly available old archives threads on PB, especially when they covered the rather new instant online YouGov polls which first started appearing in reaction to a Leaders speech at Conference. An instant poll bounce was almost a given back then, especially as they always tended to happen due to the media build up and coverage, and of course with the unspoken rule of no other party intervening on their big day. I have been surprised at the sudden partisan party management peddled here when it comes to the instant polling of this kind uninterrupted media coverage during the Conference season. In the old days it was a built in factor in the sudden diversion of polling, even Gordon Brown managed a honeymoon dead cat bounce and Conference speech boost in his early days as the Labour Leader and PM.
We won't know the real fall out of Milliband's speech until the weekend polls, IMO.
I suspect it's possible both Labour and Tories may get a boost - Labour, because cutting energy prices will obviously be popular (in theory anyway) and the Tories because the speech may be enough to bring a few of the less devoted UKIP'ers back to the Tories.
"In 2011, then Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt announced that 90% of premises in every local authority area of the UK should have access to internet speeds above 24 megabits per second by May 2015, with a minimum of 2Mbps for others.
The process has suffered from huge delays and is now due to be completed in 2017, nearly two years later than originally planned."
antifrank, bang on the money. The Tories are going to slap Labour around the face when it comes to their various political gimmicks which seriously risk thwarting the rebalancing of the economy and cutting off the much need investment to accommodate these changes which will deliver real growth and jobs in the economy. There is nothing that screams optimism for job security and increased living standards than a growing and sustainable economy with the need for high/skilled employment feeding demand.
(4) They have something up their sleeves to announce next week. George Osborne has already commented on the cost of living crisis this month and said that something must be done. It wouldn't be at all surprising to see a new policy unveiled on this front by the Conservatives next week.
In which case, we'll see three point turns from all the usual partisans in opposite directions, much to the amusement of us few unaffiliated posters on here.
I suspect you are right. What is clear is that austerity is of the table. The next election won't be fought on debt/deficit because the public still don't know the difference and would be shocked if they discovered that debt was still spiralling up. The Tories can still win on growth, so expect a tax cut.*
*I realise it's possible to increase the tax take by cutting rates, but the Laffer Curve isn't an easy sell.
Dead wrong. The Conservatives are going to beat Ed Miliband around the head with austerity and his inability to make tough choices all the way to the general election. It's going to be brutal.
it is time for Labour to take the Utilities and the Railways back into public ownership when they are re-elected in 2015. The parasitical owners of the utilities have had been exploiting the population for long enough. All the Tory scumbags are bothered about are the bonuses of the bankers-let them scream Ed.
"In 2011, then Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt announced that 90% of premises in every local authority area of the UK should have access to internet speeds above 24 megabits per second by May 2015, with a minimum of 2Mbps for others.
The process has suffered from huge delays and is now due to be completed in 2017, nearly two years later than originally planned."
Why would the result of the 2015 general election be harder to predict? Easier, surely? As of yesterday, we now know with absolute certainty that Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister.
I strongly advise to treat polls with a pinch of salt until mid October. It will take time for the conference season to shake out, and no-one yet knows the effect. On the one hand EdM has stolen the agenda, but on several other hands (think Shiva) we've yet to get to the Conservative conference and the RedEd meme is going to take a while to percolate through. I strongly suspect the latter will be the killer.
No leader branded a socialist ever wins power in modern Britain. Period. The press will not let this one go and I'm afraid I think it spells curtains for Milliband.
Why would the result of the 2015 general election be harder to predict? Easier, surely? As of yesterday, we now know with absolute certainty that Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister.
one could say (looking from afar) that the "useless out of touch posh twats" meme looks to be sticking more effectively than the "dangerous communists/socialist 70s revivalist" one
one could say (looking from afar) that the "useless out of touch posh twats" meme looks to be sticking more effectively than the "dangerous communists/socialist 70s revivalist" one
Is there any sign of dangerous communist etc sticking? Ed Miliband is uncharismatic and comes over as nerdy and ineffectual, but that's quite hard to square with things like "dangerous".
one could say (looking from afar) that the "useless out of touch posh twats" meme looks to be sticking more effectively than the "dangerous communists/socialist 70s revivalist" one
Is there any sign of dangerous communist etc sticking? Ed Miliband is uncharismatic and comes over as nerdy and ineffectual, but that's quite hard to square with things like "dangerous".
not as far as i can see. just he is referred to as "rEd" around the place. I guess there may be some division within the govt ranks as to whether to portray him as dangerous, or merely ineffectual.
In the latter case, the public might prefer "nerdy, posh(ish) lefty and ineffectual" to "arrogant, posh, (undefined) and ineffectual"
Why would the result of the 2015 general election be harder to predict? Easier, surely? As of yesterday, we now know with absolute certainty that Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister.
Firstly, for once the coalition have got it right - don't interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake. And it is a howler, as the experts are saying. Let the idiocy and dangers of the proposal be told by others, *then* pitch in. There's been a little over a day since the speech, ffs.
Secondly, there's a conference coming up. By the time it starts the story will have started to die down, and they can start pummelling it with a concerted, planned attack (presuming the Lib Dems agree that it's an awful idea). Conference is the time to attack and give alternatives.
It's interesting that none of the people making claims of profiteering and price-gouging have produced the figures to back it up. Dramatic headlines with large numbers, yes, but they seem incapable of producing profit/turnover/investment figures for context.
When they do, they should also compare to the likes of large companies such as Tesco.
To help them here are some very basic figures from Wiki: Tesco: turnover £64.8 billion, operating income £3 billion = 4.6% SSE: turnover £31 billion, operating income £1.4 billion = 4.5% Centrica: turnover £23.9 billion, operating income £2.5 billion = 10.4% (*)
The percentages are much more complex that (especially with regards to investment and operating vs net incomes - the bottom lines are much worse). But as you can see, the headline figures of billions sound dramatic, but are common. And that was a bad year for Tescos.
I'm waiting to hear Ed call for Tescos to be broken up or price capped ...
"I appreciate that housing policy, while important, is chewy and complex. So let me summarise Labour's position. It wants housebuilders to cover the land in new homes. But not ones that communities don't like. And they can't make any money by doing so. And if they do buy any land, they'll have to build on it whether or not they'll make a profit, on pain of confiscation."
I do love Mr O'Neill, he really hates patronising lefties.
"Is there anything more embarrassing than when a metropolitan Lefty, especially one who suckles on the teat of privilege in the leafiest of London’s leafy suburbs, starts gushing about the earthy decency of northerners? Ed Miliband was at it yesterday. This Hampsteadite son of a professor, helicoptered in to be the MP for Doncaster North, said in his conference speech that northerners are “the heroes of our country”. These good, plain folk “go out to work. They love their kids. They bring up their families. They care for their neighbours. They are proud of their communities”, said a watery-eyed Ed, to the whooping and cheering of his fellow northerner-loving politicos. If he had brought on to the stage a man in a flat cap with coal stains on his cheeks and a whippet under his arm, his act of patronising the hell out of the North for political gain would have been complete.
"In a subsidised system, the politician becomes the customer. The companies thought all they had to do to make profits was to pick up the phone to the Energy Minister, sigh and tell him that they would not build a wind farm unless he raised the “strike price”. That’s how it got to an unbelievable £150 per MWh. As the closure of Britain’s nuclear and coal plants is ahead of schedule, and the opening of green and nuclear replacements is about three years behind, the minister was at their beck and call.
Now suddenly they will be realising that they should have been listening to their real customers all along and championing cheap energy. Maybe even ministers will think the same thing. If so, there is a silver lining. This just might tear up the cosy consensus on energy policy that has driven the current Energy Bill through Parliament so far. After all, the public will get the impression that Mr Miliband is standing up for consumers, albeit against the wrong enemy. David Cameron needs to outflank him or risk looking like a friend of crony capitalists." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3879192.ece
Statistics from the Health and Social Care Information Centre found that in all 3,620 GPs were paid over £150,000 a year, down from 3,920 in the year before.
Of that total, 670 GPs received more than £200,000 a year in 2011/12, up from 730 in the previous year.
David Cameron’s salary of £142,500 a year as Prime Minister and an MP is seen by ministers as the upper benchmark for public sector pay.
The GP figures are based on tax returns and refer to the cash a doctor takes as salary after practice expenses, staff costs and bills have been paid.
From the Rentoul article someone linked to earlier. These are Dieter Helm's views.
Dieter, for those who don't know him, is a incredible smart academic & specialist in energy policy. He's also a bit of a leftie (I've known him for 15+ years) but he's someone whose views I take extremely seriously. Even if he did advise the last government ;-)
How are we going to persuade companies to put billions of pounds into power generation if they can’t make any money out of it? This is particularly irresponsible coming from a former energy secretary in the last Labour government and he should know better.
I would love to believe that a politician could wave a wand and cap prices, but there is a market out there and to impose a cap when you’re trying to secure supplies is the worst possible thing to do.
RT @Andrew_ComRes: ComRes/ITV: #Liverpool accent seen as least intelligent, least friendly and least trustworthy ht.ly/pe5dP
I absolutely despise this sort of survey. Really, really despise. It doesn't do anyone any good, and just allows parts of society to laugh at other parts. It's particularly bad when they ask people to judge something like 'intelligence'.
It's not the accent that matter; it's the content.
RT @Andrew_ComRes: ComRes/ITV: #Liverpool accent seen as least intelligent, least friendly and least trustworthy ht.ly/pe5dP
I absolutely despise this sort of survey. Really, really despise. It doesn't do anyone any good, and just allows parts of society to laugh at other parts. It's particularly bad when they ask people to judge something like 'intelligence'.
It's not the accent that matter; it's the content.
It's pretty important to those who run say call centres - as it influences how customers perceive what they're told. That Liverpudlians have managed to end up here is another matter.
so the question is - what exactly was in tim's 10,000th post such that it managed to bring the whole site down?
I think he blew the whistle on how Princess Di and Cameron colluded in the kidnapping and slaughter of Shergar, whose meat was mixed with hallucinogenic drugs that were put into Tescos burgers in order to convince the population to follow Thatcherite policies. This, as followed later by Thatcher's secret love-child Tony Blair, led to several wars that allowed the secret unitary organisation combining the industrial-military complex and Al Qaeda to gain even more influence in their markets.
An earlier attempt by a Sunday newspaper to reveal the truth led to its closure. Princess Di was silenced when she told Dodi the secret whilst staying in a berth on the secret space-station that is in orbit above the moonbase.
Because of Tim revealing the truth, the site has been pulled by a combination of MI5, the Royal Family, Islamic hackers, the News of the World and the M62 junction 23A.
so the question is - what exactly was in tim's 10,000th post such that it managed to bring the whole site down?
I think he blew the whistle on how Princess Di and Cameron colluded in the kidnapping and slaughter of Shergar, whose meat was mixed with hallucinogenic drugs that were put into Tescos burgers in order to convince the population to follow Thatcherite policies. This, as followed later by Thatcher's secret love-child Tony Blair, led to several wars that allowed the secret unitary organisation combining the industrial-military complex and Al Qaeda to gain even more influence in their markets.
An earlier attempt by a Sunday newspaper to reveal the truth led to its closure. Princess Di was silenced when she told Dodi the secret whilst staying in a berth on the secret space-station that is in orbit above the moonbase.
Because of Tim revealing the truth, the site has been pulled by a combination of MI5, the Royal Family, Islamic hackers, the News of the World and the M62 junction 23A.
I can see why They would want to shut the site down in those circumstances...
so the question is - what exactly was in tim's 10,000th post such that it managed to bring the whole site down?
I think he blew the whistle on how Princess Di and Cameron colluded in the kidnapping and slaughter of Shergar, whose meat was mixed with hallucinogenic drugs that were put into Tescos burgers in order to convince the population to follow Thatcherite policies. This, as followed later by Thatcher's secret love-child Tony Blair, led to several wars that allowed the secret unitary organisation combining the industrial-military complex and Al Qaeda to gain even more influence in their markets.
An earlier attempt by a Sunday newspaper to reveal the truth led to its closure. Princess Di was silenced when she told Dodi the secret whilst staying in a berth on the secret space-station that is in orbit above the moonbase.
Because of Tim revealing the truth, the site has been pulled by a combination of MI5, the Royal Family, Islamic hackers, the News of the World and the M62 junction 23A.
Yes, that or, perhaps in the light of EdM's unmitigated success at conference, he believes his work here is done.
Comments
(4) They have something up their sleeves to announce next week. George Osborne has already commented on the cost of living crisis this month and said that something must be done. It wouldn't be at all surprising to see a new policy unveiled on this front by the Conservatives next week.
In which case, we'll see three point turns from all the usual partisans in opposite directions, much to the amusement of us few unaffiliated posters on here.
It is of course not the price freeze for 20 months that is the main problem, it is (as you well know) the regulatory uncertainty and the possibility that one arbitrary freeze might be followed by another, plus the fact that Ed has explicitly said he wants to break up the current companies. You think they're going to commit to investing many tens of billions when they might be broken up in three years' time?
SSE will be a profitable company for the next couple of years, even if the price freeze happens. Any squeeze will force out some of the weaker competitors and give SSE a more secure long term position. It will be quite a bar to new entrants, and can probably be managed by wage restraint within the company and mothballing some investment. They will then be able to put up their prices, after the freeze ends.
SSE will be profitable in the long term. It is the short term that presents the problem, but it is a good stock still. I am planning to keep mine long term in my ISA.
Roger
You cannot judge the value of a share on its dividend policy alone.
An investor's return is a combination of capital appreciation plus dividend yield.
Energy companies will want to attract long term investors to finance highly capital intensive investments so will pursue a policy of paying relatively high dividends.
With their 'blue chip' status and non-discretionary business (consumers are always going to need energy supplies), energy companies try to make their shares more like fixed income bonds (i.e. the shares offer low but steady capital growth and high dividends).
Threatening to mess around with the industry and its revenue streams is creating an impact on the value of energy company shares which is exactly the opposite of that expected by investors. Hence the capital flight today from UK energy stocks.
Shareholders will have lost a lot of money today and will be far more cautious in entrusting their funds to the UK energy sector in future.
And the net effect in the market will be higher cost of capital, less investment and employment, and, higher consumer prices or blackouts.
A sort of lose, lose for all.
Others are less polite. Sunny Hundal has just retweeted the following from Bonnie Greer:
"What better accolade for #edmiliband than to be attacked by Peter Mandleson & Digby Jones? C'mon Tone, make it a hat trick. #DreadEd"
Wanting the opposition of Labour's most electorally successful Prime Minister is, erm, surprising. But Labour at present are following a small tent strategy. Only the purest are welcome.
It was popular in the short-term, but long-term it led to the meme that only millionaires should pay any tax, not just IHT.
People will eventually demand, if you can freeze the price of X, why not Y and Z too?
It should be noted that these are 2012 figures and although the proportions have remained unchanged vis-a-vis Britain vs, Rest of EU, the total value of bank bonuses and high pay has fallen in each of the three years of the Osborne government. Also the amount of bonus payments where payment is deferred to later years has increased giving greater incentives to long term gains and reclawable reward if performance declines after the year of award.
I am not defending the vast disparity between top bankers pay and average remuneration but the way to solve a problem like this is to change culture and remuneration gradually over years rather than impose sudden shocks.
Osborne has the difficult task of ensuring the City (and UK) remains competitive so that financial services companies and banks locate here; protecting the tax revenues which derive from this dominance; and, at the same time, reform the system to deter 'casino trading' and to slowly close the gap between bankers pay and incomes in the rest of the economy.
1. The world market for oil, gas and coal
2. The degree to which you subsidise renewables (and I include carbon pricing and ROCs in this category).
The dominant cause of price rises to date has been the rise in energy prices since 2000. A secondary reason is that we previously bought our gas on long-term contracts at a substantial discount to oil; the world has now changed, and we source a lot in the LNG market, where prices are high.
The funny bit is that the rise in the price of conventional fuels makes subsidies to green energy largely unnecessary. Solar is becoming (admittedly not in the UK) competitive with traditional fuel sources in large parts of the world.
The only way in which the government can hope to get the price of our electricity down is:
a) to reduce the subsidy schemes for wind (and in particular off-shore wind)
b) encourage energy conservation efforts
c) encourage natural gas exploration and drilling in the UK
Of course, as I've pointed out many times before, finding gas in the UK will have a negligible effect on utility bills. It will have a positive impact of the Balance of Trade, on employment, and on tax receipts, and is therefore a Good Thing (TM).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9490712/Energy-companies-overcharge-customers-by-600m.html
A price freeze from election day until the end of 2016 sounds good on paper but the reality of the situation is more complex, and even now people are beginning to realise what it means. The first thing people would see after a cursory google search would be the California blackouts from what was essentially the same policy. Without nationalisation you can't force companies to provide goods and services at below cost and Ed seems to have ignored or is looking for nationalisation through the back door.
However, we make progress in elucidating the Conservative view. You imply you favour retaining the current Big Six structure in the energy market, but you seem to have forgotten to answer the question on your policy on prices. Do you hope there will be a 2015-17 price increase by these (fortunately optimally-designed) six companies, for the reasons you've set out in various posts today (benefits for shareholders including pension funds, possible investment, and so on) or do you think it would be regrettable but not a matter for the Government?
The basic problem is as you pointed out previously which has unsurprisingly been ignored. The UK government does not control the wholesale price of energy and around 80% of our energy is derived from wholesale markets. One way to fix this would basically be for the government to put £10bn up for nuclear power starting tomorrow and just sell it at a loss to Centrica once it's finished. However, that is not a very efficient way of going about things.
The easiest and best way would be to remove the feed-in tariffs and let the market correct itself.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9490712/Energy-companies-overcharge-customers-by-600m.html
If Labour truly believe that the UK energy suppliers have been using their oligopolist market dominance to make excess profits (which I assume is what you mean by 'profiteering') then the proper course of action is to refer the industry to the Competition Commission.
This has not been a course of action proposed by Miliband.
What are your explanations for this?
Unbundling is obviously far more consequential, because it's a proper policy. You can argue whether it's a good or bad policy, but I don't think it's unreasonable for the opposition to have one, and if they don't get in there's a good chance the Tories will do the same thing. Although businesses would obviously prefer stability to change, an asset worth building now should generally still be worth building however you slice and dice the ownership of it.
The Daily Mail is allowing comments on Richard Barnes' wardrobe malfunction:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2432797/Former-deputy-mayor-London-left-embarrassed-intimate-photos-posted-Facebook-account.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/25/ed-miliband-business-talking-loud
"A more serious problem is practical: these standards are ethical more than they are technical and will be tough to enforce. How does one legislate according to whether things smell right and if the public is riled up?...
The risk is, after Lord Mandelson's intervention, that this becomes another story about Labour infighting. In any case, as Harold Wilson could have told his current successor, temporary price controls do not an economic strategy make. Mr Miliband now has to counter the accusation always levelled at social democrats: that they know how to spend money, but not how to make it. To counter this, Labour should do two things. The first is rhetorical, which is to stress that the party wants to attack certain antisocial behaviours by companies, rather than industries. The second is to do with industrial policy: how can the party encourage good behaviour?
This last point has been a problem for Labour, partly because all main parties now talk so much about the virtues of industrial policy that they all sound the same. Labour badly needs a distinctive offer. It should consider cutting taxes for those companies which source and make more in the UK. Ed Balls should cut national insurance contributions for companies that recruit workers and keep them for more than a couple of years. And Chuka Umunna should think about how to use the nationalised banks to channel credit to strategic industries and regions. Mr Miliband made a satisfactory splash this week. Now he and his team need to keep putting in the effort and the hard thinking."
*I realise it's possible to increase the tax take by cutting rates, but the Laffer Curve isn't an easy sell.
One impact that CC reviews have on industries is that the competition issues become identified during the course of the review and industry participants often take action to resolve them before they are forced to do so by recommendations in the final report and subsequent government action.
The benefit of an independent review in an industry like energy where government intervention is already embedded is that an objective view can be taken on all price determinants.
Good night.
Not that Cameron is above making half-baked announcements fiddling with the energy markets.
To counter this, Labour should do two things. The first is rhetorical, which is to stress that the party wants to attack certain antisocial behaviours by companies, rather than industries. The second is to do with industrial policy: how can the party encourage good behaviour?
Two assumptions which need challenging. Have the energy companies behaved antisocially and exhibited bad behaviour?
If I were an energy company executive I would go further and label these claims as "accusations" which need proving in a court of law or other competent quasi-judicial forum.
The fact that energy prices are high and have risen rapidly is not evidence of wrongdoing. There will be many factors influencing prices, some entirely beyond the control of the suppliers.
Labour badly needs a distinctive offer. It should consider cutting taxes for those companies which source and make more in the UK. Ed Balls should cut national insurance contributions for companies that recruit workers and keep them for more than a couple of years. And Chuka Umunna should think about how to use the nationalised banks to channel credit to strategic industries and regions.
It is about time solicitors' partnerships were reincorporated and floated. Then Dr Sox could transfer his SSE holdings into firms specialising in competition law. The prospects of rapid growth in litigation make for an unparalleled investment opportunity.
I would not invest in lawyers, famously bad bill payers, and not to be trusted with money.
Epic win for Ainslie, it is not always easy to transfer such tactical skill.
Ed Milliband =team Emirates
Have you ever considered asking a doctor whether your cynicism can be treated?
And I'm sure the only cure is love
http://votingandboating.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/breaking-news-open-primary.html?spref=tw
Tories = Liverpool
and when will Kagawa be unleashed?
Security forces use tear gas to disperse demonstrators in Khartoum amid simmering anger over subsidy cuts."
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/09/sudan-protests-over-fuel-turns-deadly-2013925104639248955.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24227096
"In 2011, then Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt announced that 90% of premises in every local authority area of the UK should have access to internet speeds above 24 megabits per second by May 2015, with a minimum of 2Mbps for others.
The process has suffered from huge delays and is now due to be completed in 2017, nearly two years later than originally planned."
Free publicity for Labour`s energy price freeze.
Can they make it 3 in a row?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rjbtsX7twc
No leader branded a socialist ever wins power in modern Britain. Period. The press will not let this one go and I'm afraid I think it spells curtains for Milliband.
In the latter case, the public might prefer "nerdy, posh(ish) lefty and ineffectual" to "arrogant, posh, (undefined) and ineffectual"
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/54002
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltqp4McM2wY
I guess the broadband is already pretty good here
Firstly, for once the coalition have got it right - don't interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake. And it is a howler, as the experts are saying. Let the idiocy and dangers of the proposal be told by others, *then* pitch in. There's been a little over a day since the speech, ffs.
Secondly, there's a conference coming up. By the time it starts the story will have started to die down, and they can start pummelling it with a concerted, planned attack (presuming the Lib Dems agree that it's an awful idea). Conference is the time to attack and give alternatives.
It's interesting that none of the people making claims of profiteering and price-gouging have produced the figures to back it up. Dramatic headlines with large numbers, yes, but they seem incapable of producing profit/turnover/investment figures for context.
When they do, they should also compare to the likes of large companies such as Tesco.
To help them here are some very basic figures from Wiki:
Tesco: turnover £64.8 billion, operating income £3 billion = 4.6%
SSE: turnover £31 billion, operating income £1.4 billion = 4.5%
Centrica: turnover £23.9 billion, operating income £2.5 billion = 10.4% (*)
The percentages are much more complex that (especially with regards to investment and operating vs net incomes - the bottom lines are much worse). But as you can see, the headline figures of billions sound dramatic, but are common. And that was a bad year for Tescos.
I'm waiting to hear Ed call for Tescos to be broken up or price capped ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE_plc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrica
(*) Prays that I've calculated all this properly in my sleepy state ...
"I appreciate that housing policy, while important, is chewy and complex. So let me summarise Labour's position. It wants housebuilders to cover the land in new homes. But not ones that communities don't like. And they can't make any money by doing so. And if they do buy any land, they'll have to build on it whether or not they'll make a profit, on pain of confiscation."
"Is there anything more embarrassing than when a metropolitan Lefty, especially one who suckles on the teat of privilege in the leafiest of London’s leafy suburbs, starts gushing about the earthy decency of northerners? Ed Miliband was at it yesterday. This Hampsteadite son of a professor, helicoptered in to be the MP for Doncaster North, said in his conference speech that northerners are “the heroes of our country”. These good, plain folk “go out to work. They love their kids. They bring up their families. They care for their neighbours. They are proud of their communities”, said a watery-eyed Ed, to the whooping and cheering of his fellow northerner-loving politicos. If he had brought on to the stage a man in a flat cap with coal stains on his cheeks and a whippet under his arm, his act of patronising the hell out of the North for political gain would have been complete.
Miliband’s pro-North gushing confirms the continued existence of what George Orwell called the cult of the northerner. Orwell said there was a certain breed of Lefty who believed that “the further north you live, the more virtuous you become”. There exists in England “a curious cult of northernness”, said Orwell, a “sort of northern snobbishness”. To progressives of a romantic persuasion “it is only in the North that life is ‘real’ life" http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100237908/ed-milibands-patronising-praise-for-the-north-confirms-that-orwells-cult-of-northernness-is-alive-and-thriving/
Now suddenly they will be realising that they should have been listening to their real customers all along and championing cheap energy. Maybe even ministers will think the same thing. If so, there is a silver lining. This just might tear up the cosy consensus on energy policy that has driven the current Energy Bill through Parliament so far. After all, the public will get the impression that Mr Miliband is standing up for consumers, albeit against the wrong enemy. David Cameron needs to outflank him or risk looking like a friend of crony capitalists." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3879192.ece
Statistics from the Health and Social Care Information Centre found that in all 3,620 GPs were paid over £150,000 a year, down from 3,920 in the year before.
Of that total, 670 GPs received more than £200,000 a year in 2011/12, up from 730 in the previous year.
David Cameron’s salary of £142,500 a year as Prime Minister and an MP is seen by ministers as the upper benchmark for public sector pay.
The GP figures are based on tax returns and refer to the cash a doctor takes as salary after practice expenses, staff costs and bills have been paid.
Dieter, for those who don't know him, is a incredible smart academic & specialist in energy policy. He's also a bit of a leftie (I've known him for 15+ years) but he's someone whose views I take extremely seriously. Even if he did advise the last government ;-)
How are we going to persuade companies to put billions of pounds into power generation if they can’t make any money out of it? This is particularly irresponsible coming from a former energy secretary in the last Labour government and he should know better.
I would love to believe that a politician could wave a wand and cap prices, but there is a market out there and to impose a cap when you’re trying to secure supplies is the worst possible thing to do.
It's not the accent that matter; it's the content.
An earlier attempt by a Sunday newspaper to reveal the truth led to its closure. Princess Di was silenced when she told Dodi the secret whilst staying in a berth on the secret space-station that is in orbit above the moonbase.
Because of Tim revealing the truth, the site has been pulled by a combination of MI5, the Royal Family, Islamic hackers, the News of the World and the M62 junction 23A.
Totalitarian Indoctrination Mission: complete.
I think that she is better at attacking the Government than the current shadow cabinet.
But is that supposed to be the role of the head of the public accounts committee?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24290804
One of the original complainants said she hoped the Lib Dems now got on with their internal inquiry....