Labour Would Freeze Energy Prices?(40 Posts)
Much as I'd love a lower gas bill I think Labour has shot themselves in the foot on this one. The disaster that was state regulation, state price control and nationalised industries is not forgotten and I think Miliband has made a big mistake raking up these particular ashes.
ttosca "Neither the Tory scum nor Labour ran budget surpluses most of the time for the past 30 years."
Yes, but St. Margaret and Major never increased the structural deficit WHILST AT THE SAME TIME raising taxes. Furthermore, between 79 & 97 the debt / GDP ratio went down, and for most of the time their deficits were below the inflation rate.
Face it, Labour pissed lots of our money up the wall PRIOR TO THE CRASH with very little to show for it.
Correction, that should be growth rate, not inflation rate IYSWIM.
a cap may not be under the cost of production today, but may be significantly under it tomorrow.
Isn't the issue that billions are made in profit regardless of the peaks and troughs in production costs?
Is there no intelligent way of capping, but protecting the companies against loss?
I think an accurate weather vane of whether or not these companies are making excessive profits would be to look at their share prices and dividend payout. When this is done, the energy companies don't seem too out of step with similarly sized businesses.
Not convinced that means it's ok.
We're also mid-table for electricity costs when compared with the rest of the EU. This doesn't mean I'm against lower prices. One of the better ways of stimulating a moribund economy would be to lower the cost of all forms of energy across the board. I'd just rather that any price reductions are achieved in a sustainable way, rather than by populist state intervention by a politician who doesn't know what he's meddling with.
A lot of the price of electricity is the cost of subsidising useless windfarms (ie paying huge sums to wealthy landowners). This is a result of the Climate Change Act from when Ed Miliband was the Energy and Climate Change Secretary.
I'm confused: does Miliband think we should pay more, or less for electricity?
I just read this article which I think presents the facts very well in a non-partian way: Economist.com
Basically it's not going to work and likely to have the opposite effect over the longer term. Our energy prices are in line with other western nations and a lot of it is made up of environmental levies......levies that the previous Labour administration put in place.
So very typically of Labour they cause the problem, sod off then come back proclaiming it's all those nasty Tories fault and the answer is government intervention. Neatly ignoring the fact it was their previous 'intervention' that caused the problem in the first place.
*A lot of the price of electricity is the cost of subsidising useless windfarms (ie paying huge sums to wealthy landowners). This is a result of the Climate Change Act from when Ed Miliband was the Energy and Climate Change Secretary.
I'm confused: does Miliband think we should pay more, or less for electricity?*
That probrbly depends on who is lining his, or his party's coffers.
I don't think Miliband gives a shit either way so long as he wins a few votes.
I can't believe the average voter is so easily pleased, so easily won over. I think it's a ludicrous idea that will end in tears.
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
> ttosca "Neither the Tory scum nor Labour ran budget surpluses most of the time for the past 30 years."
> Yes, but St. Margaret and Major never increased the structural deficit WHILST AT THE SAME TIME raising taxes. Furthermore, between 79 & 97 the debt / GDP ratio went down, and for most of the time their deficits were below the inflation rate.
Oh I see, so the goalposts have moved. I'm glad that you finally concede that Labour isn't responsible for the large deficit we now have, and that it was the result of the financial crisis and subsequent recession.
> Face it, Labour pissed lots of our money up the wall PRIOR TO THE CRASH with very little to show for it.
I really don't care. I'm not here to defend Labour. I'm just calling out the lies which you and Niceguy keep repeating. You may want a small state and view all public spending as a sin, but it was not public spending which caused the financial crisis and recession.
And it's certainly not Labour's spending which has caused the UK to lose 3 years of growth, the longest economic recovery in 100 years, and the largest drop in living standards since WWII - that's entirely down to the bunch of psychopaths in government known as the Nasty party.
Ttosca I'm not saying that the Tories were perfect although they were a hell of a lot better than the Red Peril.
The difference is that whilst the 79-97 Tories ran deficits, they did this at a time of falling taxes and, for most of the time, their deficits were at a lower rate than the inflation rate meaning that, in real terms, the debt becomes more manageable over time. This is still not brilliant but it is far from economic suicide.
When Labour came to power, they presided over one of the biggest peacetime tax increases in our history. Not only did they take this money and piss it up the wall, they also borrowed more money, taking our annual deficits above the rate of inflation and pissed that up the wall too. This meant that when the financial bust hit (despite Brown's hubristic abolishing of boom and bust) we were in a worse state than most of our competitors.
This isn't conjecture or opinion, this is historical fact.
So, ttosca, keep looking for your magic money tree solution to our economic problems, keep thinking that our salvation lies in borrowing even more money from our children and grandchildren and, most of all, keep up the hysterical wailing about all those evil, nasty, malevolent types that don't share your outdated and thoroughly discredited opinions. I'm sure it makes you feel a lot better.
Its not about magic money trees.
Money is the commodity that is used to value other things, it is also the medium of exchange. It doesn't matter in absolute terms how much money only where that money is at any given moment. Money needs to be in perpetual motion in order to create wealth.
All this simplistic crap about money trees is driven by ignorance.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.