Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Fri Oct 19, 2012 4:02 pm  

Him wrote:

...
There is a reason why so many people don't regularly switch their energy provider and at least a part of the reason why is that it is very complicated to work out.

As I said, the price comparison websites make it an absolute cinch to compare, the reason is not the complication, because the donkey work is all done for you. The reason is that very many customers, for example no doubt a huge slice of the elderly, are scared of the very idea od swithcing, or don't need the hassle, or don't have the internet access or confidence required.

I'm thinking that ATEOTD the power companies know very accurately what percentage are likely to change and what percentage are likely to resist change and stay long term despite the fact they could get better deals with other suppliers, and they are content to make money by relying on that resistance to change.

Him wrote:

...I don't see how tariff and price simplification could be a bad thing.

Personally I don't think tariff simplification would do very much at all, if people are fearful or change resistant then that won't alter. Only Cameron's nutty plan, to force companies to put everyone on the lowest tariff, would work but that would sadly not have the effect of saving them any money overall, as the power companies will want to get £X per annum from power sales and they are not too bothered how they do it. How Dave assumes that that "lowest tariff" would be less than people presently pay, overall, is the mystery.

I would definitely be much worse off, as I'm always on the cheapest tariff available, so I suppose I'd end up subsidising those who are unable or unwilling to shop around.

Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Fri Oct 19, 2012 4:16 pm  

EHW wrote:

The average energy bill works out to be about £3.50 per day. Which in reality isn't an awful lot to heat a property, cook, and power all the entertainment that the average house needs...

Sounds great doesn't it? £24.50 per week. may sounds a tad different – particularly when you consider all the people who can only get part-time jobs, many of them on minimum wage.

EHW wrote:

The people who are supposedly in "fuel poverty" are probably the ones who spend significantly more than that per day on cigarettes, or booze, or gambling without thinking twice about it.

This, I'm afraid, unless you can provide evidence, is just tabloidesque guesswork.

Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Fri Oct 19, 2012 6:02 pm  

EHW wrote:

The average energy bill works out to be about £3.50 per day. Which in reality isn't an awful lot to heat a property, cook, and power all the entertainment that the average house needs.

The people who are supposedly in "fuel poverty" are probably the ones who spend significantly more than that per day on cigarettes, or booze, or gambling without thinking twice about it.

So by your reckoning on the average required to heat & power a home, the average income should be £245 pw.

There is a clear definition of fuel poverty: If a household spends more than 10% of its net income on fuel, they are fuel-poor

Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:15 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Extrapolating your argument to its logical conclusion would mean that you weren't placed onto the fixed term rate in the first place because it wouldn't be the cheapest - taking Camerons proposal at its exact word the electricity company would be breaking the law, comitting a criminal offence, by offering you a fixed term rate that wasn't their cheapest rate.

Indeed, fixed terms would be impossible administer any longer because inevitably at some point in their life they would become not the cheapest option and therefore illegal.

Those are exactly the words he used, rather ineptly, and caught his own Engery Dept out in the course of doing so, and prompted the Energy Suppliers to issue a statement saying that this was the first that they had heard of this proposal.

I don't think he's serious about it at all, just looking for something to throw at the opposition during their Tuesday squabble.

how do you work that out? if you enter an agreement to pay so much for so long, that's the contract. of you agree to something that's not the 'cheapest' then that's your problem.

Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:45 pm  

samwire wrote:

how do you work that out? if you enter an agreement to pay so much for so long, that's the contract. of you agree to something that's not the 'cheapest' then that's your problem.

Yes, we know that.

What a great shame that idiot Prime Minister wasn't aware of the fact before he spilled his guts in panic at PMQs

Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:53 pm  

samwire wrote:

how do you work that out? if you enter an agreement to pay so much for so long, that's the contract. of you agree to something that's not the 'cheapest' then that's your problem.

Yes, we know.

Thats not what Camerons new law will state though, to take his word as law (which it clearly won't be as it totally ridiculous) it will be illegal for energy providers to hold or offer contracts which are not the cheapest that they can offer, whether you're at the start or middle of the contract - he said that they will be compelled to offer all of their customers the cheapest available tariff.

Of course we all know thats not what he meant, but he said it, in parliament, in a debate, and the proof that it was purely invented on the hoof is that his own department bumbled an immediate response to say that there were no details yet, and the energy companies had never heard of the suggestion let alone been consulted on it.

Policies invented on the spur of the moment without consultation to give the gullible something to feel good about - thats not what we need from a prime minister.

Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:04 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Yes, we know that.

What a great shame that idiot Prime Minister wasn't aware of the fact before he spilled his guts in panic at PMQs

so, the only words he missed were '...when any fixed term deal ends' or something similar. and if he'd have said that you'd have been in total agreement with him? not really spilling his guts in panic though, was it.

Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:17 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Yes, we know.

Thats not what Camerons new law will state though, to take his word as law (which it clearly won't be as it totally ridiculous) it will be illegal for energy providers to hold or offer contracts which are not the cheapest that they can offer, whether you're at the start or middle of the contract - he said that they will be compelled to offer all of their customers the cheapest available tariff.

Of course we all know thats not what he meant, but he said it, in parliament, in a debate, and the proof that it was purely invented on the hoof is that his own department bumbled an immediate response to say that there were no details yet, and the energy companies had never heard of the suggestion let alone been consulted on it.

Policies invented on the spur of the moment without consultation to give the gullible something to feel good about - thats not what we need from a prime minister.

aaah, so you knew what he meant, so you're just having a little hissy fit because he's a tory?

why should the energy companies be consulted on it? in fact, if he had consulted with them you'd probably whine and bleat that they were appeasing the energy companies and it'd be a stitch up anyway!

policies on the spur of the moment to make people feel good? sounds like a bloody good plan for political parties to me. well, unless you do something really stupid, like remove the 10p tax band and hail it as a wonderful step, until someone does a bit of investigation which shows that millions of the poorest in society get screwed, i'd avoid doing something like that. still, people still voted for 'em, in fact i bet there's some who are whining about what the tories are meant to be doing to the poor now who voted for the party that did that.

Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:42 pm  

samwire wrote:

aaah, so you knew what he meant, so you're just having a little hissy fit because he's a tory?

I heard what he said, its how I deduce what he meant, we all do it, its called language skills.

Of course I'm well aware that he didn't actually mean what he said, because what he said was unworkable and what he said had not been discussed with anyone, not even his own staff who then had to backpedal later in the day.

As for him being a Tory, I couldn't give a tuppeny poop what colour his politics are, he's the prime minister, he's supposed to be in control, not making things up as he goes along.

why should the energy companies be consulted on it? in fact, if he had consulted with them you'd probably whine and bleat that they were appeasing the energy companies and it'd be a stitch up anyway!

Why should the energy companies be consulted on something that is going to so dramatically change their method of supplying the only product they can offer to the public, altering it so much that some of them probably wouldn't want to trade in a business that is suddenly no longer a free market simply because a prime minister wanted to score some points in parliament ?

I can't imagine why ministers should consult industry at all, its a crazy idea, its not as though all of those MP's voting on such things are not already experts on energy markets or even how to set up a billing system to 20 million homes is it, when they vote on such a dramatic u-turn on a free market economy then they'll be able to tell the likes of EON exactly how to run their business because those ministers have so much experience in that field ?

policies on the spur of the moment to make people feel good? sounds like a bloody good plan for political parties to me. well, unless you do something really stupid, like remove the 10p tax band and hail it as a wonderful step, until someone does a bit of investigation which shows that millions of the poorest in society get screwed, i'd avoid doing something like that. still, people still voted for 'em, in fact i bet there's some who are whining about what the tories are meant to be doing to the poor now who voted for the party that did that.

So you agree that policies on the hoof are a bad thing then, especially policies that only the prime minister knows about until the moment he announces them to the most publicised parliament event of the week ?

Re: The PM and the Energy Companies : Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:26 pm  

samwire wrote:

so, the only words he missed were '...when any fixed term deal ends' or something similar. and if he'd have said that you'd have been in total agreement with him? not really spilling his guts in panic though, was it.

Yes, it was spilling his guts in panic and creating even more panic behind the scenes.

Fawn as much as you like, he's proving to be an even bigger embarassment to the tories than Ted Heath. He's lurching from one crisis to another like a punch-drunk fairground fighter.

The man's an idiot and has done his best to surround himself with bigger idiots, just to make him look better. He'll be lucky to last to the end of this parliamentary term, the only thing that may keep him going are more lurches to the right but the electorate are starting to see the Emperor really is naked after all. In some ways it's a shame that young fools like you will not get the opportunity to see just what the tories can do to a nation. Unfortunately the cost of that will be borne by the weakest and most vulnerable and that is a price certainly not worth paying again any time soon.