Labour Would Freeze Energy Prices?

(40 Posts)
CogitoErgoSometimes Thu 26-Sep-13 07:45:33

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.

MiniTheMinx Tue 01-Oct-13 19:09:21

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.

MrJudgeyPants Tue 01-Oct-13 16:28:39

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and, most of all, keep up the hysterical wailing about all those evil, nasty, malevolent types that don't share your outdated and thoroughly discredited opinions.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.

ttosca Tue 01-Oct-13 13:36:08

MrJudgeyPants-

> 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.

katieperez Tue 01-Oct-13 12:24:17

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Chipstick10 Mon 30-Sep-13 20:03:33

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.

niceguy2 Mon 30-Sep-13 10:57:37

I don't think Miliband gives a shit either way so long as he wins a few votes.

Onesleeptillwembley Mon 30-Sep-13 09:53:26

*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.

niceguy2 Mon 30-Sep-13 09:14:44

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.

amicissimma Sat 28-Sep-13 15:43:53

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?

MrJudgeyPants Fri 27-Sep-13 23:41:18

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.

dialpforpizza Fri 27-Sep-13 23:31:43

Not convinced that means it's ok.

MrJudgeyPants Fri 27-Sep-13 23:22:44

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.

dialpforpizza Fri 27-Sep-13 23:16:53

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?

MrJudgeyPants Fri 27-Sep-13 22:38:19

Correction, that should be growth rate, not inflation rate IYSWIM.

MrJudgeyPants Fri 27-Sep-13 22:37:16

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.

MrJudgeyPants Fri 27-Sep-13 22:26:51

dialp the energy market is very volatile so a cap may not be under the cost of production today, but may be significantly under it tomorrow.

As I mentioned upthread, the easiest way to get a sustainable low price is to frack like there's no tomorrow, open up the market to new competition by reducing regulations and abandoning the renewables tariffs. Ed might also like to consider VAT too.

dialpforpizza Fri 27-Sep-13 21:57:47

MrJudgeyPants the toilet roll situation in Venezuela is interesting (now there's a statement) you say the government set the price below cost of manufacture, is there any evidence to show that is what Milliband would be doing? I thought the concern is around cut in profits available for reinvestment?

(For the record I don't know enough to have a firm opinion yet, though first reaction was glad to see some kind of firm stance being taken.)

MiniTheMinx Fri 27-Sep-13 21:10:10

"ComRes conducted the interviews by telephone between 30 August and 1 September 2013.

Almost three-quarters believe the UK's energy costs are unreasonable, and 69% said the firms should be nationalised"

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23957608

MiniTheMinx Fri 27-Sep-13 20:35:45

Do you know something Cog, when I change my name for a day or two, you agree with me grin

CogitoErgoSometimes Fri 27-Sep-13 18:08:06

A recent poll of whom? Communist party members?

MiniTheMinx Fri 27-Sep-13 14:58:02

A recent comres poll showed that 69% of people want energy nationalised.

ttosca Fri 27-Sep-13 14:05:42

MrJudgeyPants and niceguy-

> ttosca by your own admission, after the longest sustained period of growth in this countries economic history the deficit was still 3%. This being on top of a significant tax hike in the years approximately running from 2000 to 2007. In other words, if you can't balance a budget under those conditions, you never can. Don't forget, this was all OPEX spending - this wasn't building for the future either.

Neither the Tory scum nor Labour ran budget surpluses most of the time for the past 30 years:

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data

> Brown's debt may not be that bad from a historical perspective but for what that debt bought and the penury we will face until it is all paid off, he should be strung up by his bollocks!

You mean bailing out the banks? I agree, he shouldn't have. But then if he hadn't, we would probably be in the midst of a revolution right now.

> So let me get this straight. I post that Labour inherited a balanced budget and left with a huge deficit

No. He didn't inherit a balanced budget. He left with a larger deficit because there was a global financial crisis. It was not because he spent too much money on schools and hospitals.

> You call me a liar yet by your own figures show that they did leave us with a big deficit.

Not sure if you're thick or a troll. Deficits are what happen during the middle a recession. Tax receipts plummet.

niceguy2 Fri 27-Sep-13 11:52:07

Oh ttosca. Your posts do make me laugh.

So let me get this straight. I post that Labour inherited a balanced budget and left with a huge deficit.

You call me a liar yet by your own figures show that they did leave us with a big deficit.

Thank you very much for the laughs.

MrJudgeyPants Fri 27-Sep-13 09:38:26

ttosca by your own admission, after the longest sustained period of growth in this countries economic history the deficit was still 3%. This being on top of a significant tax hike in the years approximately running from 2000 to 2007. In other words, if you can't balance a budget under those conditions, you never can. Don't forget, this was all OPEX spending - this wasn't building for the future either.

As for historical debt, I suggest looking at the period from around 1750. In that data you will see four significant spikes. The first was the price paid to defeat Napoleon. The second was the bill to defeat Kaiser Bill. The third was the price of defeating Hitler and the fourth was to pay for lots of diversity officers and to bribe the electorate to vote Labour. Brown's debt may not be that bad from a historical perspective but for what that debt bought and the penury we will face until it is all paid off, he should be strung up by his bollocks!

BrokenSunglasses Fri 27-Sep-13 08:48:57

It's bollocks, and it does nothing but prove how ridiculously unelectable labour are at the moment.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now