politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why EdM thinks he’s on to a winner with energy prices

FPT

Bobajob said:

Plato said:

The Miliband Effect

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BVAdwy8CcAEQHP6.jpg:large

Just so we are clear, is this

a) good for Ed
b) bad for Ed
c) a disaster for Ed

When the price failed to fall yesterday afternoon was it

a) good for Ed
b) bad for Ed
c) a disaster for Ed

The impact on Ed is not significant, Bobajob.

What is important is the impact on the country, the energy industry and its investors, and energy consumers.

What it tells us is that:

- investors in the future development of the UK's energy infrastructure and industry have decided to sell their holdings and invest their money elsewhere;

- the energy industry will find it more difficult and costly to raise funds investment funds in future;

- the rising cost and diminishing availability of investment funds will retard the development of the UK's energy generation and distribution infrastructure thereby reducing quality of service and increasing risk of interrupted supply;

- consumers will end up paying more for energy supplies than they otherwise would have done, due to constrained supply resulting from reduced investment;

- taxpayers will end up paying more as the government is forced to step in to provide investment funds which are no longer available at acceptable costs from the financial markets;

- public sector borrowing and expenses will increase due to government interventions into the energy market.

Pleased to see though that you are solely worried about the impact on Ed.

Seems thoroughly patriotic in the circumstances.

Well that seems uncontroversial:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/428271/We-ll-slash-cost-of-living-vows-George-Osborne-in-pledge-on-living-costs

"He [George Osborne] added: “Of course, there are important improvements we can make to the scale of energy and water bills, the cost of housing, the fees paid for everyday financial services, the expense of rail and road travel.”

The Chancellor said Britain was poorer today because of economic decisions by Labour while in government. And he warned switching to a Plan B would “add hugely to the cost of living”."

So I wonder what will be unveiled next week, at which point we'll see numerous voltes faces on both sides of the fence about the appropriateness of populism in this area.

Following on from my comments yesterday, the third thing Miliband's energy price freeze pledge reminds me of is the £50 per year bung for South West Water customers that George Osborne introduced.

Fiddling around with utility bills in an attempt to assuage people's anger at how fast they've risen since privatisation is hardly a novel idea in British politics.

antifrank said:

So I wonder what will be unveiled next week, at which point we'll see numerous voltes faces on both sides of the fence about the appropriateness of populism in this area.

It reminds me of the political theatre around Inheritance Tax in 2007 - worth remembering that for all some consider it derailed the election that never was, Osborne hasn't managed to push it up to £1 million after all.

RichardNabavi said:

That is hilarious. Ask people what they want, and then promise to pass a law saying they can have it. Job done. I'd never realised that being a party leader and winning elections were so easy.

The electorate have always been susceptible to bribes. I was expecting one from the Coalition pre-2015. I still am.

But this is taking it to dangerously irresponsible levels.

That said, the Cons had better play this one carefully. It is popular and that means they are better off with a "you can't trust Labour" meme than arguing the intricacies of UK's energy policy.

RedRag1 said:

Tykejohnno said:

On newspaper and tv news sites for comments on the Mlilband plan freezing energy cost,it seems miliband is on to something,even a lot of tory supporters backing ed for what I have seen.

Can we now be seeing labour up above 40% in the next few polls and staying there ? the tories better be careful how they handle this,the british public are angry with these energy companies and for me,ed's played a blinder.

It's up to the tories to show how ed's new policy would be a disaster and have they own plans that would help the british people with the cost of energy bills and the cost of living.

They more or less have a week to think something up to steal the limelight from the policy. Be interesting to see what they come up with.

Have labour let this policy out to early ?

RedRag1 said:

They more or less have a week to think something up to steal the limelight from the policy. Be interesting to see what they come up with.

Nonsense. They have 20 months to point out the obvious, that Ed Miliband is a complete twerp whose idea of a policy is to ask focus groups what freebies they'd like and then say he'll give it to them, irrespective of the consequences (in this case killing off desperately-needed investment), or the practicality of actually delivering.

If you really think voters are that stupid, then good luck.

Tykejohnno said:

RedRag1 said:

Tykejohnno said:

On newspaper and tv news sites for comments on the Mlilband plan freezing energy cost,it seems miliband is on to something,even a lot of tory supporters backing ed for what I have seen.

Can we now be seeing labour up above 40% in the next few polls and staying there ? the tories better be careful how they handle this,the british public are angry with these energy companies and for me,ed's played a blinder.

It's up to the tories to show how ed's new policy would be a disaster and have they own plans that would help the british people with the cost of energy bills and the cost of living.

They more or less have a week to think something up to steal the limelight from the policy. Be interesting to see what they come up with.

Have labour let this policy out to early ?

Depends what happens to it really(If it all falls apart, well yes). There are obvioulsy going to be more policies drip fed as the election gets nearer, but they, like any party will release the ones they think are vote winners further out to increase their exposure.

RedRag1 said:

Tykejohnno said:

RedRag1 said:

Tykejohnno said:

On newspaper and tv news sites for comments on the Mlilband plan freezing energy cost,it seems miliband is on to something,even a lot of tory supporters backing ed for what I have seen.

Can we now be seeing labour up above 40% in the next few polls and staying there ? the tories better be careful how they handle this,the british public are angry with these energy companies and for me,ed's played a blinder.

It's up to the tories to show how ed's new policy would be a disaster and have they own plans that would help the british people with the cost of energy bills and the cost of living.

They more or less have a week to think something up to steal the limelight from the policy. Be interesting to see what they come up with.

Have labour let this policy out to early ?

Depends what happens to it really(If it all falls apart, well yes). There are obvioulsy going to be more policies drip fed as the election gets nearer, but they, like any party will release the ones they think are vote winners further out to increase their exposure.

First, can I thank you on behalf of tim. He really needs this break in Tuscany and I know will come back refreshed.

Secondly, what do you think of the policy?

My views are that in the scheme of things the energy companies will probably suck it up and, taking EdM's lead today, will look for a way to work with him so that there is a voluntary element included (there are already multi-year fixed term deals from utility companies).

However, the consequential increased regulatory and political risk will push up the cost of capital which in turn will affect future investment decisions.

May I refer everyone to philiph's comment on the previous thread? Paraphrasing, (s)he claims that we must help the poorest first, and that would involve dealing with the iniquities of pre-payment meters.

(S)he's bang on.

Cost of living will undoubtedly be a major theme running from now until the election and beyond. However, we're likely to see two very different approaches to tackling it, and overlying that debate is the one about delivery - competence and practicality.

Whether or not the Tories were planning big policy announcements before this last week, there'll almost certainly be one or two now, to counter Miliband's gambit. I'd also expect them to be the sort of things the Lib Dems will find hard to support, to ensure that they can't be implemented before the election (and hence the public will have a choice at the election rather than being able to bag both). Green Tax cuts might well be high up the list, contrasting with the statist, interventionist approach Labour's taking.

antifrank said:

Well that seems uncontroversial:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/428271/We-ll-slash-cost-of-living-vows-George-Osborne-in-pledge-on-living-costs

"He [George Osborne] added: “Of course, there are important improvements we can make to the scale of energy and water bills, the cost of housing, the fees paid for everyday financial services, the expense of rail and road travel.”

The Chancellor said Britain was poorer today because of economic decisions by Labour while in government. And he warned switching to a Plan B would “add hugely to the cost of living”."

So I wonder what will be unveiled next week, at which point we'll see numerous voltes faces on both sides of the fence about the appropriateness of populism in this area.

Much of Labour's tactics on energy prices are to pre-empt an inevitable move by Osborne to reduce administrative and regulatory price rises in the run-up to the election. Energy and fuel prices were an obvious target for tax reductions/pricing moderation. By creating a stink on energy prices Labour can now claim Osborne is responding to their initiative rather than leading.

But Osborne's motives in restraining administrative and regulatory cost increases will have a broader macro-economic goal than crowd pleasing consumers.

Full and sustained economic recovery and, more particularly, the UK continuing to lead its global competitors in both the timing and velocity of recovery, will depend on the country's ability to keep interest rates low for as long as an output gap remains (spare capacity and low productivity).

The biggest threat to sustained low interest rates is consumer price inflation. For this reason any short term fiscal easing adopted by Osborne is more likely to be weighted towards cost deflation than reduction of direct taxes.

As pursuing these macro-economic goals will have the coincident effect of increasing standards of living then Osborne will be able to align his policies with the Conservative Party's political priorities and voter concerns.

It is Osborne not Miliband who is holding the winning cards.

JosiasJessop said:

May I refer everyone to philiph's comment on the previous thread? Paraphrasing, (s)he claims that we must help the poorest first, and that would involve dealing with the iniquities of pre-payment meters.

(S)he's bang on.

It's right to do something about fuel poverty. It's insane to make fuel cheaper for everyone so that we can boil ourselves to death quicker.

Ref rail regulation, the difference with the energy market is that rail companies have massively more control over their input prices than energy firms. That said, I'm far from convinced that rail regulation is carried out as effectively as it could.

Here's an idea - it would be very brave and very bold but it just might be the perfect headline grabber for Cameron in response to the energy price freeze.

Rather than saving people £120 as a one off, he'll save everyone £145.50 per year indefinitely - by abolishing the TV licence.

Instead, BBC will be funded centrally by Government grant (advertising / subscription would be too difficult / unpopular).

There will be a significant savings from no longer having any licence fee collection costs and no more prosecutions blocking up the Courts. On top of those he then funds it at a lower level for just "true public service broadcasting" - ie no more spending £22m for the rights to a singing competition format.

RedRag1 said:

Mr Topping - I actually think the policy is a vote winner and the scare mongering from the Conservatives, their friends across the press and most importantly the energy companies themselves of blackouts plays in to Ed M's hands. It reinforces the picture of Ed M taking on the big companies for the people of the UK to keep their costs down. As said by a number of the less shrill posters on here, it is a very sticky wicket for the coalition, who I assume, wont want to be seen as sticking up for the energy companies, who are very unpopular. A bit of a political masterstroke by Ed M.

The fact that the big six energy companies have stalls at the Conservative conference will not exactly be seen as helpful by the Conservative spin doctors. Not that they knew what was coming this week so couldn't do anything about it anyway.

It might well be a vote winner. The issue is to highlight the potential downsides of this, and thoroughly check them to see if they stand up. They may or may not do so.

Rather than saving people £120 as a one off, he'll save everyone £145.50 per year indefinitely - by abolishing the TV licence.

Why not do both? Why is everybody so against people having their own money?

Richard_Tyndall said:

On the previous thread Nick Palmer was talking about a pan-EU power grid system. Whilst initially this might seem a good idea it does strike me as a very poor idea when looked at more closely.

One of the great criticisms of the UK power grid is the amount of energy lost from the system. Because of the relatively short distances this runs at about 2.5-3% during high powered transmission with a further 5% lost at local transmission.

On a continental scale such as the United States (or the EU) this is much higher with the high powered grid losing between 6.5 and 7% before the addition of local power losses.

If we truly have a concern about energy resources it strikes me that we should be looking far more at local power generation with the grid only exiting as a backup to the local system. Certainly the idea of a pan EU grid system seems very wrong headed if it could mean us losing 10-12% of all the power generated.

What need is a room temperature superconductor

Richard_Tyndall said:

On the previous thread Nick Palmer was talking about a pan-EU power grid system. Whilst initially this might seem a good idea it does strike me as a very poor idea when looked at more closely.

One of the great criticisms of the UK power grid is the amount of energy lost from the system. Because of the relatively short distances this runs at about 2.5-3% during high powered transmission with a further 5% lost at local transmission.

On a continental scale such as the United States (or the EU) this is much higher with the high powered grid losing between 6.5 and 7% before the addition of local power losses.

If we truly have a concern about energy resources it strikes me that we should be looking far more at local power generation with the grid only exiting as a backup to the local system. Certainly the idea of a pan EU grid system seems very wrong headed if it could mean us losing 10-12% of all the power generated.

Ah, what we were talking about is a high-voltage DC network (HVDC). HVDC is much more efficient wrt transmission losses than AC. The technology's there and well-understood - HVDC is currently often used for underwater cable links. The losses are about 3.5% per 1,000km according to Wiki. Transmitting power over a long distance, even with losses, to allow load balancing may well be less costly than having installed local baseload capability.

AIUI, AC is better for short-distance transmission; DC is better for very long distance or underwater transmission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

Maybe Bell will get the last laugh over Tesla ...

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

On the previous thread Nick Palmer was talking about a pan-EU power grid system. Whilst initially this might seem a good idea it does strike me as a very poor idea when looked at more closely.

One of the great criticisms of the UK power grid is the amount of energy lost from the system. Because of the relatively short distances this runs at about 2.5-3% during high powered transmission with a further 5% lost at local transmission.

On a continental scale such as the United States (or the EU) this is much higher with the high powered grid losing between 6.5 and 7% before the addition of local power losses.

If we truly have a concern about energy resources it strikes me that we should be looking far more at local power generation with the grid only exiting as a backup to the local system. Certainly the idea of a pan EU grid system seems very wrong headed if it could mean us losing 10-12% of all the power generated.

Ah, what we were talking about is a high-voltage DC network (HVDC). HVDC is much more efficient wrt transmission losses than AC. The technology's there and well-understood - HVDC is currently often used for underwater cable links. The losses are about 3.5% per 1,000km according to Wiki. Transmitting power over a long distance, even with losses, to allow load balancing may well be less costly than having installed local baseload capability.

AIUI, AC is better for short-distance transmission; DC is better for very long distance or underwater transmission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

Maybe Bell will get the last laugh over Tesla ...

Only works over very long distances, where the improvement in cable losses outweighs the rectification/alternator losses. AC is still a hands-down winner in most circumstances as the voltage can be transformed with amazingly small losses. High voltage leads to low losses on the pylons, lower voltages are better suited for industrial and domestic applications.

It's why AC is everywhere, and DC is only in a few niche applications.

taffys said:

''Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall these radical policy ideas coming from him when he had the chance to put them into practice.''

Why don;t the energy companies employ an ad agency to spell all this out? give the public the truth?

Roger is on the job already.

He is currently doing light tests on the wind farm offshore from Villeneuve-sur-mer.

taffys said:

''Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall these radical policy ideas coming from him when he had the chance to put them into practice.''

Why don;t the energy companies employ an ad agency to spell all this out? give the public the truth?

That's the laughable thing, Ed Miliband was actually in government, with this brief, and could have done something then, when there was still a little bit of money sloshing around. That's why it's hard to take Milliband seriously on the subject.
Still, it'll prove to be a popular announcement,

RichardNabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

If we truly have a concern about energy resources it strikes me that we should be looking far more at local power generation with the grid only exiting as a backup to the local system. Certainly the idea of a pan EU grid system seems very wrong headed if it could mean us losing 10-12% of all the power generated.

I've no idea whether such a grid is a good idea, but I don't think your argument necessarily stacks up. The additional losses on the network might be a price very well worth paying if it allowed access to power which can be generated much more cheaply in certain locations, allowed power stations to run with a more even loading over time (thus improving efficiency), and also improved resilience.

I am not sure that fewer larger power stations is conducive to improved resilience. Were we to suffer another Carrington Event then my understanding is that the lead time to replace key parts of large power stations - particularly transformers- would be several years because of the lack of manufacturers for building equipment of that scale. I also don't believe you can automatically equate price in monetary terms with efficiency of generation. The savings in monetary terms might relate to other factors not directly related to the amount of electricity lost in the system. What we should be interested in is the most efficient way to generate and distribute electricity which will not necessarily be the same as the cheapest.

Sky News reporting that Osborne is going to go to court to stop a cap on banker bonuses. Brave, given Milliband's positioning yesterday.

Anorak said:

JosiasJessop said:

Ah, what we were talking about is a high-voltage DC network (HVDC). HVDC is much more efficient wrt transmission losses than AC. The technology's there and well-understood - HVDC is currently often used for underwater cable links. The losses are about 3.5% per 1,000km according to Wiki. Transmitting power over a long distance, even with losses, to allow load balancing may well be less costly than having installed local baseload capability.

AIUI, AC is better for short-distance transmission; DC is better for very long distance or underwater transmission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

Maybe Bell will get the last laugh over Tesla ...

Only works over very long distances, where the improvement in cable losses outweighs the rectification/alternator losses. AC is still a hands-down winner in most circumstances as the voltage can be transformed with amazingly small losses. High voltage leads to low losses on the pylons, lower voltages are better suited for industrial and domestic applications.

It's why AC is everywhere, and DC is only in a few niche applications.

IANAE, but as I understand it you're right up to a point. The distances are long, but so are the distances in Europe. It's been investigated, and decided that a HVDC system is best for use as a backbone. Apparently (Wiki linked earlier as a source) the lines themselves are cheaper to build and maintain as well. They can also carry much more power, and it is easier to convert between different countries' power systems.

Another link:
http://www.dciinsulator.com/shownews.asp?id=155

It's not a case of a HVDC backbone replacing local AC; it will be in addition to the local transmissions. Think of it as a motorway compared to a local road network.

If Ed is really serious about helping consumers with their cost of living, and not merely indulging in gimmicks as all politicians do, he'd ensure we had control of our own energy needs. Green methods are an expensive, next century solution which can be fed in gradually (bugger the polar bears). He needs to unleash the dogs of fracking, burn waste, and bring nuclear back.

But he's a greeny who isn't worried about the bills. So a gimmick it is. And after twenty months, if the lights don't go out, the bills will soar to make up for the lost revenue.

I think there was always a case for nationalising fuel supply, despite the associated downsides. But that might be a vote-loser. Principles? Wot's them?

JosiasJessop said:

Anorak said:

JosiasJessop said:

Ah, what we were talking about is a high-voltage DC network (HVDC). HVDC is much more efficient wrt transmission losses than AC. The technology's there and well-understood - HVDC is currently often used for underwater cable links. The losses are about 3.5% per 1,000km according to Wiki. Transmitting power over a long distance, even with losses, to allow load balancing may well be less costly than having installed local baseload capability.

AIUI, AC is better for short-distance transmission; DC is better for very long distance or underwater transmission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

Maybe Bell will get the last laugh over Tesla ...

Only works over very long distances, where the improvement in cable losses outweighs the rectification/alternator losses. AC is still a hands-down winner in most circumstances as the voltage can be transformed with amazingly small losses. High voltage leads to low losses on the pylons, lower voltages are better suited for industrial and domestic applications.

It's why AC is everywhere, and DC is only in a few niche applications.

IANAE, but as I understand it you're right up to a point. The distances are long, but so are the distances in Europe. It's been investigated, and decided that a HVDC system is best for use as a backbone. Apparently (Wiki linked earlier as a source) the lines themselves are cheaper to build and maintain as well. They can also carry much more power, and it is easier to convert between different countries' power systems.

Another link:
http://www.dciinsulator.com/shownews.asp?id=155

It's not a case of a HVDC backbone replacing local AC; it will be in addition to the local transmissions. Think of it as a motorway compared to a local road network.

Assuming you're talking about a pan-EU network, you may well be right, and that would reduce the losses. Little use *within* any EU country though.

Isn't engineering fun

If it was just a vote winner without any principles,then Miliband could have forced the big 6 to freeze only household bills.

But it`s businesses which would gain a big share of the 4 billion pounds the energy companies lose because of the freeze.Remember while households gain only 120 pounds,businesses save 4800 pounds.

Cicero said:

Personally, at a time when the UK is dangerously close to capacity limits in electricity generation it is an act of total economic insanity to start mucking about with tariff limits. You either ration by price (capitalism) or by shortage (socialism) and so EdM wants brownouts, and he will get them.

This stupid idea sums up the pathetic economic illiteracy of these cretins.

Are you another criticising Cameron for meddling with tariffs through his insisting that everyone should be on the lowest energy tariff ?

MaxPB said:

The Tory line is very easy on this. "We don't think Ed and Labour have thought through the consequences on investment and jobs in the energy sector" or "Ed is putting Britain's energy security at risk to win votes". No more, no less.

And you think scaremongering will work ? Good luck .

MarkSenior said:

MaxPB said:

The Tory line is very easy on this. "We don't think Ed and Labour have thought through the consequences on investment and jobs in the energy sector" or "Ed is putting Britain's energy security at risk to win votes". No more, no less.

And you think scaremongering will work ? Good luck .

Yup. It always does. In the run up to the election, stories about blackouts and thousands of lost jobs and billions in lost investment is enough.

Plus, it isn't scaremongering, there are real world examples (California being the most recent) that show how introducing a price ceiling leads to blackouts.

Ha, Kay Burley skewering Luciana Berger on why Milliband did feck all about it when he was in government.

What a pity tim was caught by silly point on a score of 9,999.

He would now be at the crease taking guard against Tory spinners on rent rises.

And he would have found the ball didn't spin at all; every one straight as a Cameron referendum pledge.

The ONS published their experimental "Index of Private Housing Rental Prices, June to August 2013" this morning. It was their second release in this new series.

Here are the cover points:

• In the 12 months to August 2013 private rental prices paid by tenants in Great Britain rose by 1.2%. Private rents in Great Britain excluding London rose by 0.8% during the same period.

• In the 12 months to August 2013 private rental prices grew by 1.1% in England, 1.3% in Scotland and 1.3% in Wales.

• In the 12 months to August 2013 rental prices increased in all the English regions, with rental prices paid increasing the most in London (1.9%) and the South East (1.1%).

So not a single region where rental prices increased by more than rate of inflation and an average rise well under half the CPI rate. This is clear indication that rent prices are falling in real terms.

The regional breakdown is as follows: Between August 2012 and August 2013, rental prices grew by 1.1% in England, 1.3% in Scotland and 1.3% in Wales. The underlying rate in England excluding London was only 0.8%.

And what is even more significant is that rate of annual growth in private rental prices has started to fall. From around spring of this year, coincident with capital values of homes rising, the growth rate in rents has begun to fall.

=================================
     Private Sector Housing      
       Rental Price Index        
    12 Month price change %      
---------------------------------
   2013                2008      
Under Dave          Under Gordon 
---------------------------------
 Jan   1.4            Jan   1.7  
 Feb   1.4            Feb   1.7  
 Mar   1.3            Mar   1.7  
 Apr   1.3            Apr   1.8  
 May   1.3            May   1.8  
 Jun   1.2            Jun   1.8  
 Jul   1.2            Jul   1.8  
 Aug   1.2            Aug   1.8  
=================================

It does make you wonder which party is better at reducing living costs.

AveryLP said:

What a pity tim was caught by silly point on a score of 9,999.

He would now be at the crease taking guard against Tory spinners on rent rises.

And he would have found the ball didn't spin at all; every one straight as a Cameron referendum pledge.

The ONS published their experimental "Index of Private Housing Rental Prices, June to August 2013" this morning. It was their second release in this new series.

Here are the cover points:

• In the 12 months to August 2013 private rental prices paid by tenants in Great Britain rose by 1.2%. Private rents in Great Britain excluding London rose by 0.8% during the same period.

• In the 12 months to August 2013 private rental prices grew by 1.1% in England, 1.3% in Scotland and 1.3% in Wales.

• In the 12 months to August 2013 rental prices increased in all the English regions, with rental
prices paid increasing the most in London (1.9%) and the South East (1.1%).

So not a single region where rental prices increased by more than rate of inflation and an average rise well under half the CPI rate. This is clear indication that rent prices are falling in real terms.

The regional breakdown is as follows: Between August 2012 and August 2013, rental prices grew by 1.1% in England, 1.3% in Scotland and 1.3% in Wales. The underlying rate in England excluding London was only 0.8%.

And what is even more significant is that rate of annual growth in private rental prices has started to fall. From around spring of this year, coincident with capital values of homes rising, the growth rate in rents has begun to fall.

=================================
     Private Sector Housing      
       Rental Price Index        
    12 Month price change %      
---------------------------------
   2013                2008      
Under Dave          Under Gordon 
---------------------------------
 Jan   1.4            Jan   1.7  
 Feb   1.4            Feb   1.7  
 Mar   1.3            Mar   1.7  
 Apr   1.3            Apr   1.8  
 May   1.3            May   1.8  
 Jun   1.2            Jun   1.8  
 Jul   1.2            Jul   1.8  
 Aug   1.2            Aug   1.8  
=================================

It does make you wonder which party is better at reducing living costs.

Is Tim banned?

@TwistedFireStopper

'Ha, Kay Burley skewering Luciana Berger on why Milliband did feck all about it when he was in government.'

Energy costs up 85% over 12 years of which 10 years were under a Labour government.


''Last week it emerged energy bills have almost doubled since 2000, turning up the heat on Britain’s already hard-pressed families.

Households last year spent an average of £1,339 on gas and electricity – 85 per cent more than the £710 at the turn of the century, research shows.

The figures – adjusted to 2012 prices to take inflation into account – show that gas bills went up by 119 per cent and electricity bills by 47 per cent between 2000 and last year.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430497/Labour-conference-2013-Ed-Miliband-speech-claims-Britain-better.html#ixzz2ftVlkPFD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

TwistedFireStopper said:

AveryLP said:

What a pity tim was caught by silly point on a score of 9,999.

....

Is Tim banned?

He is queening it up on 9,999. Some are saying he is on holiday. Some that he is The Stig.

surbiton said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

Ha, Kay Burley skewering Luciana Berger on why Milliband did feck all about it when he was in government.

This hysterical defence of the energy companies by PBTories is indeed unbelieveable. Not since they defended bankers bonuses.

No hysteria here. Just concerns.

Perhaps you should be concerned as well? Or do you think that Miliband's plan has no potential downsides?

surbiton said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

Ha, Kay Burley skewering Luciana Berger on why Milliband did feck all about it when he was in government.

This hysterical defence of the energy companies by PBTories is indeed unbelieveable. Not since they defended bankers bonuses.

I don't like Labour, so I must be a PB Tory?

I'm not defending the energy companies, I don't know whether the price freeze is a good or bad thing, but it'll certainly be a popular policy,if it works out.

It is a valid point, though, to compare Milliband's time in office, with his stance now, given it was only 3 years ago.
Plus, I love seeing politicians of all flavours squirming under the lights.

anotherDave said:

"The new boss of the controversial HS2 rail project has been appointed on a salary of £591,000 a year."

http://news.sky.com/story/1146341/hs2s-new-boss-appointed-on-591k-salary

Ouch. I'm not defending that.

BTW, I'll do it for £59,000. I've got no experience or particular knowledge, but I love the subject and it'd be fun. Best of all, I'd get to go down loads of tunnels. ;-)

AveryLP said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

AveryLP said:

What a pity tim was caught by silly point on a score of 9,999.

....

Is Tim banned?

He is queening it up on 9,999. Some are saying he is on holiday. Some that he is The Stig.

You should quickly make 7,341 posts to steal the glory Crown of Sadness and Sceptre of the Pitiable.

Harriet has finished. Red Flag soon. Get ready

Monique from General Secretary office leads the singing. It can't be worse than the version of 2 (IIRC) years ago

@TwistedFireStopper

wrt @tim - he's coming down your way. He thought an outside broadcast from the brazier would carry more man-of-the-people import for his 10,000th.