Don't Pay UK

[BillyStubbsTears]

Energy bills comparison;
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FZvvJCDXwAANf0D?format=jpg&name=900x900

Why is that?
What is specific to the UK that makes this so hard?

Most European Governments are subsidising the price of energy (or, in the case of France, they are insulated from the bulk of the gas price increase because they have a massive nuclear electricity capacity).

We will (unless the new PM wants a revolution on her hands) not be subsidising the price, but putting money into consumers' pockets to cover a hefty proportion of the increase.

As I explained earlier this week, ours is the more economically suitable and more morally correct approach. Assuming the new PM does it at the scale required.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Given that the rich always benefit from a financial crisis, especially one the size of this, surely the best way forward for the tories is to give enough out to the better off workers in tax breaks (for GE votes) whilst making sure there is a recession for the very rich to do all their dirty dealing, including buying up cheaper homes to sell on when there's an upturn. Win win. Is it Sunak or Truss that have the perfect formula for this exploitation?

[albie]

BST,

Your posts show that you do not understand the energy economy.

Yes, the French do not depend upon gas for heating like the UK.
The task for the UK is to electrify heat asap, and decouple the cost of electricity from wholesale gas prices.

The nuclear history of France is why they have electrified home heating, but this over dependence is now coming home to roost;
https://www.theenergymix.com/2022/08/07/failing-french-nuclear-plants-drive-up-electricity-costs-as-heat-wave-cuts-production/
The nuclear sector would collapse without public intervention.

The basic point is that this is a supply crisis, not a demand crisis, although we can manage demand downwards with energy efficiency and home insulation.
You will find that out when Putin restricts supply in the heating season. The worst is yet to come.

Your claim that compensation via the benefits system is the best response shows that you do not know how that system works, and how many fall through the gaps.

I can give you a more detailed explanation of why your general economic theory is incorrect applied to energy markets if you wish.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

You keep saying that I don't understand the energy issue, while studiously avoiding reading what I write on the subject.

You condescendingly tell me this is a supply problem.

I know. I've said that multiple times.

You dismiss the argument that subsidising prices is the wrong approach without even mentioning the core of the argument that I put forward in this very thread.

So I'll say it again.

If you subsidise prices, what is the mechanism by which you encourage reduction in demand? Because, if you don't reduce demand, in a world of limited supply, the global market price of energy remains exorbitantly high. In which case, what happens to developing countries who don't have the fiscal space to counter the high global costs?

[MachoMadness]

Now then. Here's Gordon Brown on the issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/10/tax-profits-freeze-energy-prices-bring-suppliers-into-public-sector-gordon-brown?CMP=fb_cif

Pretty clear cut, fair play really. Would argue his version of "bringing into the public sector" is questionable but better than nothing.

Rumour is Labour are finally going to say something of substance next week. I genuinely hope they step up to the plate, despite my extreme scepticism, because the country needs it.

[Filo]

Theres no doubt about it, civil disobedience is just around the corner, we watch two MP’s to fight it out to be an unelected PM, while the current PM sits on his hands, has a party and a holiday while the Rest of the Country worry’s how they are going to pay the bills

[albie]

BST,

The idea that allowing UK prices to rise quickly to £4200pa on average will help reduce energy costs in low income countries is wishful thinking......Do you really think Russia is looking at it like this?

"in a world of limited supply, the global market price of energy remains exorbitantly high. In which case, what happens to developing countries who don't have the fiscal space to counter the high global costs?"

You are assuming a global free market in energy without constraints, this is far from reality, as the Russian supply restrictions show.

Countries will act to preserve their own interests, be that by energy export tariffs or other measures.
This is a highly customised international market with trade barriers, and a supply restriction which targets certain economies.

"If you subsidise prices, what is the mechanism by which you encourage reduction in demand?"

The problem is that supply is not constrained by demand, but by geopolitics.
It will continue to be restricted for this reason alone, the level of demand globally will not influence this in the near term.

Demand has already been reduced by folk at the sharp end...they have no more wriggle room.
Look at the current level of energy debt, at record levels and rising rapidly.
https://metro.co.uk/2022/08/10/cost-of-living-households-already-owe-1300000000-on-energy-bills-17157306/
 
The solution is to pay people more, freeze price rises and confiscate excess profits from the energy suppliers with a profits cap, and do this while bringing the whole sector back into public ownership......otherwise profit based inflation will transfer wealth to rent seekers abroad.

The strange thing is that you recognise the need to renationalise energy, but then argue "not now".
If some specific measures are not fully effective until a time lag has passed, go early, not late.

There is no better time to grasp the problem, delay just means more hardship for the vulnerable.

[MachoMadness]

Theres no doubt about it, civil disobedience is just around the corner, we watch two MP’s to fight it out to be an unelected PM, while the current PM sits on his hands, has a party and a holiday while the Rest of the Country worry’s how they are going to pay the bills

Looking at the poll responses here, I reckon there will be some non-civil disobedience as well. It's going to be brutal once the temperature starts to drop. And no one's doing anything about it.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/energy-bills-sunak-truss-conservatives-b2141681.html

[SydneyRover]

Pud,

Please read my post properly.
With a 51% public holding, private shareholders with a minority 49% can retain their shares if they wish...they are not "losing out".

That is only one means, others can be put forward.
Are you saying that the current set up is working?....for the big 6 maybe, but not for consumers!

Takeovers happen all the time in the financial hubs, why not one for the public good instead of private gain?

The issue is one of principle....what does a modern energy system look like, and how does the UK achieve it at lowest cost.
Give us your take please?

The present system is clearly broken, and cannot be reformed to meet the needs of the fuel poor and to decarbonise without conflict, can it?.

No I totally understood it. You essentially think it's fair to devalue shareholdings by 50% and legal to only offer new shares to the government. Is it?

Shares are a gamble, if you want security buy gov't bonds, you cannot buy shares and then demand a never ending stream of dividends. You buy shares because presumably you want a higher rate than putting your dough in the bank, if the company struggles for what ever reason or goes belly up, that's the price you pay for the risk of a higher dividend.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie

You are waving away my points with waffle.

The economics domestically is simple.

If prices for energy that our suppliers have to pay on global markets go up by £X, Govt can deal with this in two ways, which are fiscally identical (in their effects on Govt finances), and identical in the protection they give to consumers.

Govt can subsidise the price by £X.

Or it can give £X directly to consumers.

You insist that the first approach is the only one. You are wrong in that. And, as far as the domestic issue is concerned, here's the socialist reason why you are wrong.

Govt subsidising prices is a blunt instrument that, in absolute cash terms aids the millionaire more than it helps the minimum wage single parent. It effectively subsidises everyone, and the more energy you use, the bigger the subsidy. I cannot support that. I prefer the Govt spending to be targeted at those who most need it. You cannot do that by subsidising the price. But you can do it by putting up Universal Credit by £40-50 a week, and/or making Govt payments directly to poorer workers. These payments should taper off for higher paid people who can afford to take the hit without going into penury. THAT is the socialist way to deal with the issue.


Regarding excess profit taxes, you're lecturing me, not for the first time, on something I've been proposing for months.

Regarding nationalisation, I'm not saying "not now". I'm saying that is irrelevant to the IMMEDIATE price crisis. For what it's worth, I do think nationalisation sooner rather than later is needed for the green transition.

Regarding demand management, I assumed you would agree that all developed countries need to rapidly reduce their reliance on imported gas, both for environmental reasons, and to reduce reliance on Russian supply. How do we do that if we subsidise the consumer price? Where's the incentive to turn off lights and turn the thermostat down? As for the effect on global prices of a reduction in demand from developed countries, you are assuming that Russia's ability to squeeze global supply is unlimited. It isn't, if for no other reason than that they rely on that supply for their income.

[River Don]

Here's the problem BST. During furlow we fell between the cracks and despite needing help recieved none. I saw friends in a better position than us receive the full furlow. In the event we muddled through, with the help of an inheritance that came through.

I know we'd be in a similar position with Sunaks targeted help this winter too. Sunak acknolwges this happens and just shrugs saying he's very sorry but he can't help everyone.

The French model of holding the cap down appeals far more to me, simply because it's comprehensive.

[BillyStubbsTears]

RD
I'm sorry to hear that.

But this is a very different sort of crisis. Furlough was about keeping people in jobs. This is about matching what energy is going to cost with what people can afford.

It would be very easy for the Govt to run a -ve income tax for example, to give money to people rather than take it from them. This could be set at a high % for low earners, and taper off so that high earners get nothing and have to look after themselves. That would work for everyone registered as employed or self employed. For those not in work, UC could be increased to put money into their pockets. Similarly, anyone receiving a state pension could be given an increase.

The alternative means Govt subsidising the wealthy who can look after themselves. And at some point, we'll all have to pay for that, either in higher taxes or in lower state spending on schools and hospitals.

[River Don]

Trust me BST, without going into details, I'm already seeing the cracks open up.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Trust me BST, without going into details, I'm already seeing the cracks open up.

Yes, I agree. But that's because the Govt had tvtaken this remotely seriously. They haven't put in anywhere near enough money into subsidising incomes OR prices.

Johnson has f**ked off in a huff saying it's not his problem.

Truss and Sunak have refused to address this now. And Truss, who will win has said next month her policy will be a tax cut that gives someone earning half a million quid a year an extra £100 a week, and someone earning £10k a year precisely zero.

The problem there is not the principle of whether you subsidise prices or incomes. It's a total disengagement with the issue.

[danumdon]

It looks like this issue is going to be ongoing for the rest of this year and the majority of next before it tapers off.

I think i read somewhere that someone proposed a sort of quasi nationalisation where the state provided a controlled amount of energy to each household, with filtering for dwelling type and numbers of inhabitants. This controlled amount would be provided with the proviso that if you wanted any more you had to pay the market rate plus a surcharge for it. So the larger consumers who wanted more had to pay for the extra.This would prevent the real poor and OAP's from freezing to death this winter and allow us to get through this extraordinary period where as stated its going to get progressively worse this winter when Putin really turns the screw.

Would this be feasible to implement whilst also looking into doing the same with water supply's in the future and other required services.

Would this be a help to the large proportion who are going to genuially struggle to either eat or heat this winter?

[albie]

BST,

Your points.

The economics domestically is simple.
GAS MARKETS ARE COMPLEX, AND SUBJECT TO A MIX OF CONTRACT TYPES WHICH HEDGE FOR INFLATION AND SPOT MARKET VARIATION.

If prices for energy that our suppliers have to pay on global markets go up by £X, Govt can deal with this in two ways, which are fiscally identical (in their effects on Govt finances), and identical in the protection they give to consumers.
WRONG. THE IMPACT ON GOVERNMENT FINANCES IS VERY DIFFERENT.

A VERY IMPORTANT POINT IS TO LIMIT INFLATION ACROSS THE ECONOMY, AND ALLOWING THE PRICE INCREASE WILL DRIVE THAT UPWARDS…..THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU WOULD WANT.

Govt can subsidise the price by £X.
Or it can give £X directly to consumers.
You insist that the first approach is the only one. You are wrong in that.
NO, I AM SAYING THAT IT IS BETTER TO PREVENT THE PRICE RISE (NOT SUBSIDISE, AS YOU INCORRECTLY SAY).

THIS IS TO MINIMISE THE INFLATIONARY EFFECT, WHICH HAS MAJOR IMPLICATIONS FOR TAX REVENUE IF BUSINESSES FOLD DUE TO ENERGY SHOCK AFFECTING THEIR VIABILITY.

And, as far as the domestic issue is concerned, here's the socialist reason why you are wrong.

Govt subsidising prices is a blunt instrument that, in absolute cash terms aids the millionaire more than it helps the minimum wage single parent. It effectively subsidises everyone, and the more energy you use, the bigger the subsidy.
YES, BUT YOU INTRODUCE PRICE CAPS IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER MEASURES, SUCH AS THE BASELOAD TARIFF.
NOBODY IS SUGGESTING YOU PRICE CAP WITHOUT OTHER MEASURES TO MITIGATE IMPACTS IN THE WIDER ECONOMY.

I cannot support that. I prefer the Govt spending to be targeted at those who most need it.
YES, I AGREE WITH TARGETING....THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT IS TO PREVENT THE PRICE CAP INCREASE, THEN ADDRESS FUEL POVERTY FROM A LOWER BASELINE OF CHARGES AND DEBT.
ALLOWING PRICES TO RISE, THEN LOOKING TO COMPENSATE WILL COST MORE TO RETROFIT, AND WILL NEED TO BE REPEATED.
BUT IT IS NOT JUST HOUSEHOLDS. BUSINESSES ARE ALSO AT RISK.

You cannot do that by subsidising the price.
YOU ARE NOT SUBSIDISING THE PRICE, YOU ARE CAPPING IT. THE ENERGY COMPANIES WOULD TAKE THAT HIT THEMSELVES FROM PROFITS.

But you can do it by putting up Universal Credit by £40-50 a week, and/or making Govt payments directly to poorer workers. These payments should taper off for higher paid people who can afford to take the hit without going into penury. THAT is the socialist way to deal with the issue.
NO, UC IS ACCESSED ONLINE AND CAPPED AT £16K SAVINGS, AND HAS AN EARLIER TAPER......MANY VULNERABLE PEOPLE FALL THROUGH THE NET WITH UC.

A SOCIALIST WOULD ABOLISH UC AS UNFIT FOR PURPOSE, AND WOULD NOT ALLOW THE PRICE CAP TO BE USED TO SUPPORT THE COMPANIES RATHER THAN CONSUMERS.

Regarding nationalisation, I'm not saying "not now". I'm saying that is irrelevant to the IMMEDIATE price crisis.
NO,THIS IS NOT A ONE-OFF. THE PRICE CRISIS IS A CONTINUING PRESSURE INTO THE MID TERM.
For what it's worth, I do think nationalisation sooner rather than later is needed for the green transition.
SO WHY NOT KILL 2 BIRDS WITH 1 STONE, AND DEAL WITH THE CLIMATE ISSUE AT THE SAME TIME AS THE ENERGY CRISIS?

Regarding demand management, I assumed you would agree that all developed countries need to rapidly reduce their reliance on imported gas, both for environmental reasons, and to reduce reliance on Russian supply. How do we do that if we subsidise the consumer price? Where's the incentive to turn off lights and turn the thermostat down?
THE PRICE SIGNAL HAS ALREADY MAXED OUT, AS THE RISING DEBT SHOWS. ADDITIONAL COST INCREASES HAVE A DECLINING IMPACT OVER TIME, NOT A RISING ONE.
DEMAND MANAGEMENT IS ABOUT A WHOLE RANGE OF TOOLS, SUCH AS DIFFERENTIAL PRICING OFFERING A BASELOAD TARIFF AT A LOW RATE, THEN SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN UNIT COSTS ABOVE THAT MINIMUM CONSUMPTION.

As for the effect on global prices of a reduction in demand from developed countries, you are assuming that Russia's ability to squeeze global supply is unlimited. It isn't, if for no other reason than that they rely on that supply for their income.
NO, IT IS CLEAR WE ARE A LONG WAY FROM THE END.
PUTIN IS NOT MAKING CHOICES BASED UPON MAXIMISING INCOME.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

You've actually given me pause for thought about whether I didn't get this. Not because of any argument you e put forward, but because you were so robust in insisting I didn't know what I was talking about. I did wonder if I was missing something.

Then this post.

Where on earth to start?

Let's start here. I think this gets to the core of things:

You cannot do that by subsidising the price.
YOU ARE NOT SUBSIDISING THE PRICE, YOU ARE CAPPING IT. THE ENERGY COMPANIES WOULD TAKE THAT HIT THEMSELVES FROM PROFITS.

This was a lightbulb moment for me. You actually think the first order problem is profiteering by the energy delivery companies don't you? You couldn't possibly have written this without believing that.

Let's explore that. You reckon we can tell the suppliers to keep prices down and just reduce their profits? How much shall we cap the price rise by? Given that we have 25 million households in the country, every £1000 you cap the price rise by adds up to £25bn.

You reckon supply companies can absorb that level of cost?

Or do you suggest that we somehow magically tell the extraction companies that we as a country are capping the price we will pay for gas? Good luck with that given that 50% of our gas comes from imports.

There is no possible escape from the fact that, if we want to protect consumers, that requires massive Govt subsidy to either suppliers or consumers. Claiming you can just pass a law that caps the price rise and that's that is so far wide of the mark, I'm genuinely astonished to here you say that.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I fear the next PM is truly insane.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62513966

If she thinks an NI cut is going to sort this out, there'll be riots like you've never seen by Xmas.

[rich1471]

I fear the next PM is truly insane.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62513966

If she thinks an NI cut is going to sort this out, there'll be riots like you've never seen by Xmas.

just read this the woman has a screw loose and it in does help at all to people on low wages

[Filo]

I fear the next PM is truly insane.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62513966

If she thinks an NI cut is going to sort this out, there'll be riots like you've never seen by Xmas.

I honestly don’t think we are that far away from riots, the caretaker PM has washed his hands of the job, the two wannabe PM are pandering to the elite and the poor are facing destitution, something has to give!

Yes I’m a Labour voter, but honestly I don’t care who’s in power right now, I just want someone thats going to get a grasp of the situation, politics can wait for now, we’re on the brink of a national crisis. So far Gordon Browns plan is the only credible plan out there, I challenge anyone to find a better alternative

[drfchound]

I fear the next PM is truly insane.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62513966

If she thinks an NI cut is going to sort this out, there'll be riots like you've never seen by Xmas.

I honestly don’t think we are that far away from riots, the caretaker PM has washed his hands of the job, the two wannabe PM are pandering to the elite and the poor are facing destitution, something has to give!

Yes I’m a Labour voter, but honestly I don’t care who’s in power right now, I just want someone thats going to get a grasp of the situation, politics can wait for now, we’re on the brink of a national crisis. So far Gordon Browns plan is the only credible plan out there, I challenge anyone to find a better alternative

I agree with you on this Filo.
For the life of me I can’t understand why Johnson stayed on as a caretaker manager.
The leadership thing should have been done much quicker.
They are taking longer than Rovers do to appoint a new boss.

[albie]

Filo,

Gordon Brown’s solution includes some good suggestions, but overall it makes little sense.
Brown seems to be saying is that the state should absorb energy company losses, and then restore them to private control when profits return.

That is a complete misunderstanding of the need to reform the sector in the public interest.
The current system will never work for the fuel poor, or be able to respond to climate breakdown.

[Bristol Red Rover]

That old Tory conference British cheese speech showed off her loose screws. Though it also showed how as much as she is a wannabe Thatcher, she ain't. She hasn't got the same robot Iron Lady act, not nearly. There is some humanity in her beyond the insanity, as well as some ability to adapt. That could go any way, but she is someone who's instinct is to be liked, and that possibly - fingers crossed - is a general thing, she wants the country to approve of her, it's not just about pleasing her party or the establishment. And she will very much want to win the next election for herself as a feel good thing.

Sunak is just caught in so much slime of so much establishment corruption, he'd be a nightmare in this situation. Tories know this.

So I think Truss would be somewhat flexible to pressure from the population, though not directly wanting to be swayed by an "anarchist" movement.

[Filo]

Filo,

Gordon Brown’s solution includes some good suggestions, but overall it makes little sense.
Brown seems to be saying is that the state should absorb energy company losses, and then restore them to private control when profits return.

That is a complete misunderstanding of the need to reform the sector in the public interest.
The current system will never work for the fuel poor, or be able to respond to climate breakdown.

I agree a long term solution is required, but the here and now needs addressing urgently, like I said can anyone come up with a credible alternative or are we going to let a lot of people freeze to death this winter?

[albie]

I sometimes disagree with Owen Jones, but this 2 minute video is on the right lines:
https://twitter.com/We_OwnIt/status/1558076187041316870?cxt=HHwWjIC-2a-Cs58rAAAA

Where are Labour and the silent knight?

[scawsby steve]

I sometimes disagree with Owen Jones, but this 2 minute video is on the right lines:
https://twitter.com/We_OwnIt/status/1558076187041316870?cxt=HHwWjIC-2a-Cs58rAAAA

Where are Labour and the silent knight?

They're all on holiday in Aussie, Albie, having a barbecue with Sydney Rover, the only friend they've got left.

[albie]

BST,

What you are suggesting, allowing prices to rise exponentially, will result in rampant inflation, leading to a massive recession including business failure and the loss of tax revenue to the public purse.

The issue is how the UK manages the available supply, and how the rising cost is mitigated in the interest of low income consumers AND the wider economy.

Your proposal sidesteps the main issue, which is energy sector reform....without this, we are just on a treadmill of reactions rather than grasping the need for a new UK framework for energy.

1)
"Or do you suggest that we somehow magically tell the extraction companies that we as a country are capping the price we will pay for gas? Good luck with that given that 50% of our gas comes from imports".

No, I am saying that the UK caps the price retail suppliers can charge consumers, subject to consumption levels, with a higher tariff kicking in ONLY above the base price when a set minimum has been exceeded.

This has got to happen anyway....kicking the can down the road makes matters worse.

2)
Existing contracts need to be honoured, as a matter of law.
No-one is suggesting reneging on contracted supply arrangements.

The UK supply is provided by private sector multinationals, like the big 6, in a commercial arrangement with contracted providers.
For the big boys, much of this supply is in house, but traded on international markets where price differentials allow profit taking.

The small operators, over 30 of which have gone bust, are re-sellers dependent upon the decision making of the big 6, who operate as a cartel in relation to government.

3)
You mention that the UK imports 50% of our gas.
Yes, mostly from Norway and the USA as (LPG). A small proportion comes from Russia (3 or 4%).

4)
We also export North Sea gas.
This gas is owned by the likes of British Gas, and is sold on international markets.
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/uk-exporting-gas-despite-energy-crisis

Your plan would result in the big 6 further benefiting from the increase, with UK energy users paying much higher costs to see that expenditure moved outside the UK to international shareholders, including the French government amongst others.

5)
Without public ownership and integration of the supply, distibution and retail networks, this will continue until reserves are exhausted by 2030 or so.

The point about Russia is that reduced supply will impact future contracts, so countries will become more protectionist with export quotas and tariffs. This is likely to mean higher prices in the next medium term contract bids.

6)
So the UK is managing a situation that is changing rapidly, and in the context of rampant inflation.

Doubling down on energy prices is the strongest measure in the toolbox to limit inflationary pressure, and at the same time relieve fuel poverty. You can do neither with your plan to allow price cap rises without structural intervention.

7)
The people on the sharp end struggling to pay exorbitant energy costs are also under pressure from other cost of living increases.
Likewise businesses at the cliff edge of cost increases.

The proposed price support to consumers is paid to the energy suppliers, with a credit on bills. This is then recouped by higher unit costs in the mid term.....so it is no different to a interest free loan.

8)
As I have pointed out, you need a suite of measures working together, not one-off gestures.
Proposed changes to the overall price cap ceiling would be alongside reform of tariff charges to introduce a progressive taper.
See the link below.

9)
You could be taking the Bulb customers and transfer them to a new public service energy provider, offering a lower tariff than the big 6. This would put downward pressure on the big 6 to reduce unit charges in response, or lose customers to the public provider.

The new provider could look to change the relationship between bills heavy on consumption with those low usage customers whose bill is excessive because of standing charges.

Those with a higher percentage of their disposable income going on energy costs stand to gain more from progressive tariff reform.

10)
"There is no possible escape from the fact that, if we want to protect consumers, that requires massive Govt subsidy to either suppliers or consumers".

You refer to use of public money as subsidy, but that depends on how it is spent.
Subsidy is price support without reform.....investment is public funding directed to structural change of the energy sector, for long term benefit.

Consider the position of energy dependent companies working across national boundaries.
What is going to happen is that they will move production to the location where energy costs are capped lower than in the UK.
This has major implications for the UK economy....think about that!

The UK is not protecting consumers by failing to change how the system works.
The best way to address the IMMEDIATE crisis is by structural reform.

A more intelligent discussion of the options for UK energy market reforms is here from New Economics Foundation:
https://neweconomics.org/2022/07/keeping-bills-and-carbon-low-where-next-for-policy

The low hanging fruit are those actions which are relatively neutral to the public finances, but high impact on the vulnerable groups.

I suppose it is only relevant if you want to address the issue, rather than political point scoring.

[normal rules]

A better way of getting back at the energy companies without bringing untold grief on yourself.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwicjPuMzsT5AhWIQEEAHVXKA9wQFnoECAMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-news%2Fbrits-urged-hurt-energy-companies-27706517&usg=AOvVaw31PjLLWFpkbdlOVi29TMrF

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

One at a time if you don't mind because you're your thing again of losing the big picture wood for the detail of the trees. In doing so, you're actually ignoring what I keep saying, not addressing it.

Big picture. I've said that one way or another, we only get through this crisis by Govt subsidising someone. Govt has to either subsidise the price the consumer pays, or subsidise the consumer who pays the price.

You keep ignoring that and saying there's a magic solution whereby Govt simply decrees that the price must be no more than X. Let's investigate that. Again...

 If you cap the price that SUPPLIERS can charge consumers, while not having power to cap the price EXTRACTORS charge Suppliers, you put every single Supplier out of business. That may or may not be a strategic aim, but it's irrelevant to this issue. In that case, Govt would have to step in to take over the supply system. But it would still have to pay global market rates to the Extractors.

Now, perhaps we could insist that Extractors don't charge us the global market price. You could do that in the case of the UK North Sea extraction. How quickly you could deal with the legal issues when faced with a $1trn industry is a question, but let's park that.

The issue is that you still have 50% of our supply to find from non-UK suppliers. You are right that we don't import much from Russia, but that was nothing whatsoever to do with the point. Russia's supply restrictions have caused global market prices to rocket for everyone, not just for Russian gas. You think Norway is going to say to us "We can get 4 times the price for our gas by selling it in the world market, but because it's you, we'll give you the same price that you've told your North Sea suppliers to charge you"?

The fact is that at least half our gas is going to cost spectacularly more next year than it did a year ago. That is an unavoidable fact, even though you've avoided addressing it over and over again. The question is: how do we address that fact without pauperising 40% of the population? The answer HAS to involve massive Govt subsidies somewhere or other.

You want to subsidise the price (or you did a few days ago before you started claiming we could wave the issue away just because we want to).

I want to subsidise consumers, while, where we can, confiscating the unearned profits generated by this massive market failure.

[BillyStubbsTears]

More thoughts on why we should be subsidising energy consumers, not prices.

Look at this analysis of what the impending costs are likely to be.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ianmulheirn/status/1558055849788145669

With no further assistance, after taking account of pay rises, and increased costs, the richest will be out of pocket by net £250 a month by next April. The poorest by about £150 a month.

Those figures correspond to only 4% of income for the richest tenth of the population, but nearly 20% for the poorest tenth.

If you subsidise gas and electric prices through Govt spending (and please Albie, accept that you're not going to do it any other way) then you will be giving more money to the richest  than you will to the poorest. Because the richest generally have bigger homes and bigger energy usage.

The genuinely socialist thing to do is not to subsidise prices, but to target assistance to this who are worst hit, by pouring money into their pockets. The richest 10-30% can take the hit without ending up on the street or freezing in their beds. It would be criminal to subsidise them rather than target assistance at the poorest.

There's another issue.

I'm currently paying 18.7p/kWh for electricity on a deal that expires in 8 weeks. I've been quoted 60-70p/kWh from October.

At 60-70p, it's a no brainer that I get solar panels and a battery. If the price of electricity is subsidised by Govt and capped at around 20-30p/kWh, it doesn't make financial sense for me to make that investment. Even though it is the thing I SHOULD be incentivised to do.

Subsidising prices is just wrong, wrong, wrong on SO many levels.