Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How will the 2010 LDs who’ve switched to LAB react to the s

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited September 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How will the 2010 LDs who’ve switched to LAB react to the speech? If they remain Ed becomes PM

At the 2010 general election 24% of those who turned out voted for the Lib Dems and, as we all know, a large number have since shifted or are now saying don’t know.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    I'd think they'll generally receive it well, since (in my patch at least) their objection to Labour was that they thought it was too right-wing, in hock to Murdoch and big business, etc., and they switched because they thought that being in a pact with the Tories was even worse. Initial reaction of those who've contacted me since yesterday has been pleasant surprise - but that's an anecdote (4 ex-Lib~Dems).
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited September 2013
    One would hope that ex-LibDem voters would be sane enough to realise that a five-year old saying "Daddy, why doesn't the government just pass a law so you can afford to buy me a new bicycle?" does not make a coherent policy package, but we shall see.
  • Ed Davey held responsible for Ed Militwunt's forced energy-price rises come Sping 2015: Delicious! Shame our Lib-Dhimmie friends are so slow-on-the-uptake....
  • The speech matters really for only one thing: Ed Miliband has decided to fight the next election as Red Ed. For the first time in a generation, business will uniformly strongly support the Conservatives. The next election will be fought between the Conservatives with the mantle of economically sound but not caring and Labour with the mantle of nicer people with nicer ideas but economically flaky.

    It still looks like a hung Parliament to me.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Ah the fabled 2010 LD voter. I feel they need a latin scientific name, given their importance in the current political cycle.
  • ...their objection to Labour was that they thought it was too right-wing, in hock to Murdoch and big business, etc.,....

    And of course Labour are totally committed to their election-manifesto. So much so that they went to court to prove it....

    :norways-gain-is-a-loss-for-whom:
  • @RobD rattus crepidatus
  • If the only change is that 7% of all voters move from Lib Dem to Labour, then using Electoral Calculus, Labour will be 13 seats short of a majority, and will have gained 0.31% fewer votes than the Tories.

    It would be a mighty close-run thing, and if the Conservatives managed to defy the national swing in a dozen marginals they would be less than 10 seats behind Labour, and Conservatives and Lib Dems could just about scrape a majority together between them. It would be Nick Clegg's call.

    So I think there is still all to play for. Loss of Tory votes to UKIP is important. Labour 2010 voters who voted for the incumbent might be persuaded to vote for the current PM. Labour are losing some voters to UKIP. Some 2010 Lib Dems now say they will vote UKIP and Conservative.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    I'd think they'll generally receive it well, since (in my patch at least) their objection to Labour was that they thought it was too right-wing, in hock to Murdoch and big business, etc., and they switched because they thought that being in a pact with the Tories was even worse. Initial reaction of those who've contacted me since yesterday has been pleasant surprise - but that's an anecdote (4 ex-Lib~Dems).

    Clegg is looking to position the Lib Dems in the centre ground for next GE from what I remember of his speech (And backed up by http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/09/nick-cleggs-speech-liberal-democrat-conference-full-text) the word centre is used 10 times.

    So there is probably ample ground for Miliband to hoover up Left Leaning 2010 Lib Dems indeed.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    Judging by the reaction to the speech on here I reckon it's going to do wonders for the smelling salt manufacturing figures.
  • Fluffy - That comment to RedRag was wholly unacceptable.

    Any repeat of a comment like that will lead to stronger action.

    Redrag/Fluffy- Your conversation is now closed.
  • If the only change is that 7% of all voters move from Lib Dem to Labour, then using Electoral Calculus, Labour will be 13 seats short of a majority, and will have gained 0.31% fewer votes than the Tories.

    Have you factored in Barrow-in-Furness? The resident-MP has a choice: Defect or hope Labour get elected and throw him a Quango-bone.

    [And that is only one seat. Portsmouth, Pitsea, Plymouth, Teeside and The Wirral may awaken to the lunacy that is Militwunt. Scotland will be happy though....]
  • RedRag1RedRag1 Posts: 527
    "If this group stays with LAB then it is hard to see how Ed Miliband will not become PM" - No matter how many times people say this, there are some on here who just will not accept it.
  • “The day I woke up in bed naked next to Ed Balls': How the Shadow Chancellor gave DAMIAN MCBRIDE a rude awakening.”

    Apologies in advance for those still enjoying brunch…!

    But it would appear that not only did Ed Balls know McBride,- he knew rather too well.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2431236/The-day-I-woke-bed-naked-Ed-Balls-How-shadow-chancellor-gave-Damian-McBride-rude-awakening.html
  • I think there is an ongoing problem with this kind of analysis and the conclusions Mike is drawing.

    Whilst it is true that the Lib Dem/Labour switchers do represent a sizable number of voters - some 1.9 million voters - it is a number that is dwarfed by comparison with the number of eligible voters who did not vote - almost 16 million of them.

    The real question for any party seems to me to be how to re-enthuse those voters and get them supporting our electoral system again. The party that can do that with any degree of success is the one that will win the next election, irrespective of what Lib Dem switchers (or UKIP) are doing.
  • antifrank said:

    The speech matters really for only one thing: Ed Miliband has decided to fight the next election as Red Ed. For the first time in a generation, business will uniformly strongly support the Conservatives. The next election will be fought between the Conservatives with the mantle of economically sound but not caring and Labour with the mantle of nicer people with nicer ideas but economically flaky.

    It still looks like a hung Parliament to me.

    Nice people with nice ideas? Not if you work for an energy company.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    One would hope that ex-LibDem voters would be sane enough to realise that a five-year old saying "Daddy, why doesn't the government just pass a law so you can afford to buy me a new bicycle?" does not make a coherent policy package, but we shall see.

    You've completely lost your mind on this energy policy. The fixed price product that Ed is talking about is already in the market place. A more realistic attack would be to argue that the policy is unnecessary (as consumers can fix their price if they choose) or does not go far enough to address the problem.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Could something be wrong here?

    TimesBusiness @TimesBusiness
    HSBC hires 3,000 more compliance officers, bringing its total compliance staff to more than 5,000. By @CitySamuel thetim.es/1bahXEo
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    RedRag1 said:

    "If this group stays with LAB then it is hard to see how Ed Miliband will not become PM" - No matter how many times people say this, there are some on here who just will not accept it.

    A victory won without taking voters off the party of the PM seems so unsatisfying that it seems flaky, as if it might not materialise even if the polls still show it the week before the election. The scepticism is simply a product of the almost unique method.
  • FPT: Mr. Jonathan, the difference between an involuntary freeze and a voluntary freeze might seem minor, but it's the same as choosing to be teetotal and the government introducing prohibition.
  • If the only change is that 7% of all voters move from Lib Dem to Labour, then using Electoral Calculus, Labour will be 13 seats short of a majority, and will have gained 0.31% fewer votes than the Tories.

    Have you factored in Barrow-in-Furness? The resident-MP has a choice: Defect or hope Labour get elected and throw him a Quango-bone.

    [And that is only one seat. Portsmouth, Pitsea, Plymouth, Teeside and The Wirral may awaken to the lunacy that is Militwunt. Scotland will be happy though....]
    It is just straight Uniform National Swing. I wouldn't call it a prediction, as such, merely an indication that the underlying picture would be close enough in the scenario that Mike posits, that such local factors could prove to be decisive on the final result.

    I make no judgement as to which side would benefit most from such local factors.
  • Is this coincidence? The Mail have chosen a picture of Ed Balls to accompany some McBride froth showing him wearing a National Grid tee-shirt:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2431236/DAMIAN-MCBRIDE-The-day-I-woke-bed-naked-Ed-Balls.html
  • RedRag1 said:

    "If this group stays with LAB then it is hard to see how Ed Miliband will not become PM" - No matter how many times people say this, there are some on here who just will not accept it.

    You're wrong on that- most people on here accept that Milliband as PM is a probability, but not inevitable, given the way things are going, and the vagaries of FPTP. In a hung parliament, maybe, put PM none the less.

    You're too fixated on getting the word "Hodges" into your posts to see it.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    FPT

    @Flockers_pb

    ''They also need to tear into Miliband's legacy at DECC. Every price rise on his watch - he now owns. Every defence of profitability - he now owns. Every comment he has ever made about the importance of investment into the UK is a weapon waiting to be used against him.'

    As in:

    '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
  • "or does not go far enough to address the problem."

    Or that it is a massive risk / upheaval / adds uncertainty into the market to save the consumer £120..why not just raise my IC threshold and leave £120 in my pocket? It is about the same as Cameron's marriage tax nonsense...if you are going to do it, make it really substantial.
  • Jonathan said:

    You've completely lost your mind on this energy policy. The fixed price product that Ed is talking about is already in the market place. A more realistic attack would be to argue that the policy is unnecessary (as consumers can fix their price if they choose) or does not go far enough to address the problem.

    As I pointed out on the previous post, it's not just the freeze, it's also the regulatory uncertainty and threat of forced break-up. It's not me that's lost my mind on this, it is Labour. Stark, staring, raving, bonkers, and highly irresponsible at a time when we urgently need many tens of billions of pounds of investment.

    As I've posted before, but it's even clearer now, what Labour should fear is not losing the election under Miliband, but winning it under Miliband. Do you really not understand where he is taking you?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Brilliantly open-minded bondage-on-a-budget

    "Trumpington Village Hall on the outskirts of Cambridge will host a series of workshops including "spanking and impact play", "kink on a budget" and "flogging", in an event organised by the group Peer Rope Cambridge.

    Tea and biscuits will also be provided, the cost of which will be covered by the £10 entrance fee. Attendees are encouraged to bring their own money-saving ideas to the workshop, which will cater to fetish fans affected by the economic downturn.

    The day starts with “breakfast and introductions,” before proceeding on to sessions covering hypnosis, spanking and “communication and negotiation.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/10332650/Village-hall-hosts-bondage-workshop-with-tea-and-biscuits.html
  • RedRag1 said:

    "If this group stays with LAB then it is hard to see how Ed Miliband will not become PM" - No matter how many times people say this, there are some on here who just will not accept it.

    If the LD-Lab switchers stay with Labour then it is very probable that Labour will form the next government. If Con-UKIP switchers stay that way, it's almost certain. I doubt few people reject those points. The case in doubt is whether either or both of those groups will stay as they are, not just for the next few weeks (they probably will) but for the next 18+ months.
  • Jonathan said:

    You've completely lost your mind on this energy policy. The fixed price product that Ed is talking about is already in the market place. A more realistic attack would be to argue that the policy is unnecessary (as consumers can fix their price if they choose) or does not go far enough to address the problem.

    As I pointed out on the previous post, it's not just the freeze, it's also the regulatory uncertainty and threat of forced break-up. It's not me that's lost my mind on this, it is Labour. Stark, staring, raving, bonkers, and highly irresponsible at a time when we urgently need many tens of billions of pounds of investment.

    As I've posted before, but it's even clearer now, what Labour should fear is not losing the election under Miliband, but winning it under Miliband. Do you really not understand where he is taking you?
    Do Labour supporters ever understand what they're getting? When it finally dawns on them what it means they blame Thatcher and then convince themselves it was because they weren't left wing enough.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901



    As I've posted before, but it's even clearer now, what Labour should fear is not losing the election under Miliband, but winning it under Miliband. Do you really not understand where he is taking you?

    Perhaps you would like to illustrate this point. Would be fascinating to hear your view.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
  • Jonathan said:



    As I've posted before, but it's even clearer now, what Labour should fear is not losing the election under Miliband, but winning it under Miliband. Do you really not understand where he is taking you?

    Perhaps you would like to illustrate this point. Would be fascinating to hear your view.
    He's trying to win the election on a ludicrous populist package of no pain, no cuts, magic wands to cut prices, houses magically built out of nowhere without apparently any policy decision to make them happen, raids on what he sees as easy targets (banks, energy suppliers, pension funds), pay increases magicked out of thin air and called a 'living wage', an implicit promise to the public-sector unions that producer interests will be allowed to dominate, an explicit promise to increase the deficit after rebranding spending as investment, etc etc etc.

    Maybe it will work, in May 2015. (More likely, it will half-work, which would be even worse.)

    But then what?
  • Plato said:
    Great find Plato. 10% customer service looks ripe for pruning on that one, if the energy prices go up.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650

    "or does not go far enough to address the problem."

    Or that it is a massive risk / upheaval / adds uncertainty into the market to save the consumer £120..why not just raise my IC threshold and leave £120 in my pocket? It is about the same as Cameron's marriage tax nonsense...if you are going to do it, make it really substantial.

    How do you know there`s going to be a massive upheaval.These companies make billions in profits(3.7 billion last year),perhaps they can invest that and previous profits in their industry and cut down on their bonuses and dividends for 1 year.

    Why should the tax-payer take all the pain?Why not these utility companies which are accused of rigging the market so that if one company raises the price,they all follow suit effectively ending competition?
  • RobCRobC Posts: 398



    Miliband has also energised Labour activists, which will result in a marked contrast to the 2010 campaign.

    That is a significant point and interestingly formerly taciturn union leaders were also singing the praises of the Labour Party.

    For Lib Dems though I think Ed's return to 1970's style demand management possibly presents us with an opportunity to stake out some healthy territory in the centre between the Tories having to move right to placate the EU hating wing of their party and needing to reclaim UKIP voters and Labour heading off in the other direction.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Plato said:

    Brilliantly open-minded bondage-on-a-budget

    "Trumpington Village Hall on the outskirts of Cambridge will host a series of workshops including "spanking and impact play", "kink on a budget" and "flogging", in an event organised by the group Peer Rope Cambridge.

    Tea and biscuits will also be provided, the cost of which will be covered by the £10 entrance fee. Attendees are encouraged to bring their own money-saving ideas to the workshop, which will cater to fetish fans affected by the economic downturn.

    The day starts with “breakfast and introductions,” before proceeding on to sessions covering hypnosis, spanking and “communication and negotiation.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/10332650/Village-hall-hosts-bondage-workshop-with-tea-and-biscuits.html

    Sue ran down the corridor to fetch Ed Balls, who grasped me by the shoulders, shouting and giving me a good shake.
    By then about a quarter awake, and still drunk, I assumed that a female bedmate was indulging in some amorous play-wrestling.
    So I started to roll over and try to pull ‘her’ on to me — with a winsome ‘C’mere’ — at which point Ed sharply lurched away from the bed with a loud: ‘Good grief!’ It was difficult to work out what was happening. I could see my bedroom door was open, with several people apparently whispering outside; I could hear water running, with lots of irritated swearing coming from the bathroom; and I finally realised I was stark naked.

    Here we juxtapose a village hall event and the Labour party conference.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    edited September 2013
    Plato said:
    So HMG are taking nearly 4 times the cut out of energy than the energy co.s
  • Plato said:
    So HMG are taking nearly 4 times the cut out of energy than the energy co.s
    Welcome to the wonderful world of VAT... (and green tariffs).
  • Funny how the Tories on here are complaining about the "Green taxes" adding to energy bills but not the 5% VAT (originally 8%) they imposed on fuel bills in their time in government. That's £5 on a £100/month bill.
  • antifrank said:

    The speech matters really for only one thing: Ed Miliband has decided to fight the next election as Red Ed. For the first time in a generation, business will uniformly strongly support the Conservatives.

    Energy costs are hugely important for many businesses, who might like the idea prices should be reduced but would happily settle for them being predictable.

    Business for Labour!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited September 2013
    "How do you know there`s going to be a massive upheaval."

    Errhhh...because your leader and shadow minister said so....new regulator...break up of big 6, separation of generation and supply...etc..don't know about you, but that sounds like a massive upheaval to me.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited September 2013
    Quite - hence my alarm that low information voters or those seduced by the promise of a free lunch will deliver him to Number 10.

    Jonathan said:



    As I've posted before, but it's even clearer now, what Labour should fear is not losing the election under Miliband, but winning it under Miliband. Do you really not understand where he is taking you?

    Perhaps you would like to illustrate this point. Would be fascinating to hear your view.
    He's trying to win the election on a ludicrous populist package of no pain, no cuts, magic wands to cut prices, houses magically built out of nowhere without apparently any policy decision to make them happen, raids on what he sees as easy targets (banks, energy suppliers, pension funds), pay increases magicked out of thin air and called a 'living wage', an implicit promise to the public-sector unions that producer interests will be allowed to dominate, an explicit promise to increase the deficit after rebranding spending as investment, etc etc etc.

    Maybe it will work, in May 2015. (More likely, it will half-work, which would be even worse.)

    But then what?
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    FWIW I think the speech yesterday has strengthened the likelihood that Labour will be returned with a majority to the point that it is probable and therefore a sensible planning assumption.

    The keynote policies will appeal to 2010 Labour voters and the LD movers alike. If there are on-going and seemingly hysterical responses to them it'll only strengthen the effect. The one counterbalancing effect could, of course, be if it knocks the current UKIP supporters out of their schismatic frame of mind and back into the Tory fold.

    So, the main question for those planning their personal circumstances post-2015 is: does Milliband mean it all (plan for higher tax/interest rates) or is it just eye-catching red meat to achieve a 35% vote that will be followed by another go at prudence. The goal of the Blair project was to prove that New Labour could win a second election, is Milliband similarly focussed or does he just want to show that a socialist manifesto can win one election?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Funny how the Tories on here are complaining about the "Green taxes" adding to energy bills but not the 5% VAT (originally 8%) they imposed on fuel bills in their time in government. That's £5 on a £100/month bill.

    So labour will be removing the 5% then ? And the green levies ? Thought not.
  • Funny how the Tories on here are complaining about the "Green taxes" adding to energy bills but not the 5% VAT (originally 8%) they imposed on fuel bills in their time in government. That's £5 on a £100/month bill.

    VAT goes to the government.

  • I think there is an ongoing problem with this kind of analysis and the conclusions Mike is drawing.

    Whilst it is true that the Lib Dem/Labour switchers do represent a sizable number of voters - some 1.9 million voters - it is a number that is dwarfed by comparison with the number of eligible voters who did not vote - almost 16 million of them.

    The real question for any party seems to me to be how to re-enthuse those voters and get them supporting our electoral system again. The party that can do that with any degree of success is the one that will win the next election, irrespective of what Lib Dem switchers (or UKIP) are doing.

    There is a simple reason why Mike will disagree with that, and it's that he lost [some] money at the 2010 election because of people who told opinion pollsters that they would vote Lib Dem, but who then did not bother to go out to vote at all.

    Time after time people talk about appealing to people who did not vote - I remember reams of analysis from Patrick before the last election on why an increased turnout would produce a thumping Conservative victory - but it is never that simple.

    I would also argue that there are structural reasons why turnout is lower now than in the past, to do with a greater number of people being registered to vote at more than one address, because of second homes, split families, university and moving around the country for work. As I've said before, I was registered to vote in three different constituencies for the 2001 general election, but I only voted once, so my personal turnout figure would have been recorded as 33.3%.

    Since I support the integrity of our voting system, there was no way for any party to enthuse me to increase my turnout to 100%.
  • Plato said:

    Brilliantly open-minded bondage-on-a-budget

    "Trumpington Village Hall on the outskirts of Cambridge will host a series of workshops including "spanking and impact play", "kink on a budget" and "flogging", in an event organised by the group Peer Rope Cambridge.

    Tea and biscuits will also be provided, the cost of which will be covered by the £10 entrance fee. Attendees are encouraged to bring their own money-saving ideas to the workshop, which will cater to fetish fans affected by the economic downturn.

    The day starts with “breakfast and introductions,” before proceeding on to sessions covering hypnosis, spanking and “communication and negotiation.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/10332650/Village-hall-hosts-bondage-workshop-with-tea-and-biscuits.html

    I was cycling through Trumpington yesterday. I didn't see too many whips, at least outside of Waitrose.

    (As an aside, there's a thatched cottage on the Trumpington Road that used to have two blow-up dolls arranged in various positions in an upstairs window. They always made us chuckle when we went past on the top deck of the bus, and we'd try to guess how they were arranged. Sadly they vanished sometime whilst we were living down in Southampton).
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    Plato said:
    Great find Plato. 10% customer service looks ripe for pruning on that one, if the energy prices go up.
    I was surprised by that but then I think of how many times I've rung them up when my power failed/had an engineer out or complained about their estimates of my bill... I know I live in a vulnerable area with overhead lines with lots of trees but it'd be interesting to know how this OH compares with other services.
  • Funny how the Tories on here are complaining about the "Green taxes" adding to energy bills but not the 5% VAT (originally 8%) they imposed on fuel bills in their time in government. That's £5 on a £100/month bill.

    So labour will be removing the 5% then ? And the green levies ? Thought not.
    Labour cut VAT on fuel from 8% to 5% immediately after the 1997 election. They wanted to abolish it completely but couldn't due to EU regulations on VAT.
  • Rexel56 said:

    So, the main question for those planning their personal circumstances post-2015 is: does Milliband mean it all (plan for higher tax/interest rates) or is it just eye-catching red meat to achieve a 35% vote that will be followed by another go at prudence. The goal of the Blair project was to prove that New Labour could win a second election, is Milliband similarly focussed or does he just want to show that a socialist manifesto can win one election?

    Hope for the best and plan for the worst. IMO a bigger danger than a Miliband majority is a Milband minority government or weak coalition. At least if he has a majority he can renege on his fairy-tale promises with relative impunity, but in a hung parliament he'd have to buy people off, which would be even worse.
  • It all depends whether they wish to have an avowed Marxist running a Soviet-era, centrally-directed command economy, where land seizure is government policy.

    Personally, I think he's going to poll as badly as Foot - even though Cameron's no Thatcher, Milliband's brand of neo-communism is anathema to most, if not yet all, British people.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    antifrank said:

    The speech matters really for only one thing: Ed Miliband has decided to fight the next election as Red Ed. For the first time in a generation, business will uniformly strongly support the Conservatives.

    Energy costs are hugely important for many businesses, who might like the idea prices should be reduced but would happily settle for them being predictable.

    Business for Labour!
    probably the daftest post of the morning.

    In business people add up all the costs, not just a selected few and at the monent Ed's adding to costs not reducing them.
  • Think people are concentrating a bit too much on the price freeze. The real shocker for me was the pledge to decarbonise the economy by 2030. So presumably this means shutting our remaining coal plants and all our gas plants too (and abandoning shale gas)? And replacing them with what? More inefficient, expensive and ugly windfarms? Solar is fine but not so good when it gets dark!
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650

    antifrank said:

    The speech matters really for only one thing: Ed Miliband has decided to fight the next election as Red Ed. For the first time in a generation, business will uniformly strongly support the Conservatives.

    Energy costs are hugely important for many businesses, who might like the idea prices should be reduced but would happily settle for them being predictable.

    Business for Labour!
    It is bizarre the CBI opposes this when it is business which are big winners from the freeze as well as any further reduction in the price of electricity after Ofgem is reorganised.I am sure small businesses would love this.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901



    He's trying to win the election on a ludicrous populist package of no pain, no cuts, magic wands to cut prices, houses magically built out of nowhere without apparently any policy decision to make them happen, raids on what he sees as easy targets (banks, energy suppliers, pension funds), pay increases magicked out of thin air and called a 'living wage', an implicit promise to the public-sector unions that producer interests will be allowed to dominate, an explicit promise to increase the deficit after rebranding spending as investment, etc etc etc.

    Maybe it will work, in May 2015. (More likely, it will half-work, which would be even worse.)

    But then what?

    Sounds very close to Tory policy.

    The Tories certainly raid their easy targets.
    They magically find the money for their pet projects and tax cuts.
    They quite like disruptive top-down reorganisations and intervening in markets.
    They are hardly immune from producer interests.

    As for pain, its primarily for other people.
  • Sort-of OT but related.

    This book was recently recommended by someone (sorry, forgotten by whom) on pb
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hedge-Hogs-Traders-Streets-Disaster/dp/1400068398/

    Though its main focus is the demise of a hedge fund, it covers the huge costs to businesses of gas price spikes caused by speculators trading natural gas options.
  • Miliband admits freezing energy prices could actually raise bills

    Labour leader Ed Miliband admits that energy companies may now “collude” to raise energy prices ahead of the 2015 election as a way to get around his pledge to force them to freeze prices.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10332674/Ed-Miliband-admits-pledge-to-freeze-energy-prices-could-lead-to-higher-bills-before-next-election.html

    More coin for the lawyers ahead...
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Gareth Baines @GABaines
    Miliband effectively wiped £816,000,000 off the value of Centrica - imagine what he could do if he were Prime Minister...
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Funny how the Tories on here are complaining about the "Green taxes" adding to energy bills but not the 5% VAT (originally 8%) they imposed on fuel bills in their time in government. That's £5 on a £100/month bill.

    So labour will be removing the 5% then ? And the green levies ? Thought not.
    Labour cut VAT on fuel from 8% to 5% immediately after the 1997 election. They wanted to abolish it completely but couldn't due to EU regulations on VAT.
    chortle.

    Politicians do a bit of window dressing shock.

    Overall energy taxes have gone up and will continue to do so. When the base of cost of energy continues to rise so do the taxes. And then there's the green levies that have been plonked on top.......
  • SMukesh said:

    antifrank said:

    The speech matters really for only one thing: Ed Miliband has decided to fight the next election as Red Ed. For the first time in a generation, business will uniformly strongly support the Conservatives.

    Energy costs are hugely important for many businesses, who might like the idea prices should be reduced but would happily settle for them being predictable.

    Business for Labour!
    It is bizarre the CBI opposes this when it is business which are big winners from the freeze as well as any further reduction in the price of electricity after Ofgem is reorganised.I am sure small businesses would love this.
    Not bizarre at all. Businesses know all too well about cause and effect.

    Businesses need security of supply. This measure may give them lower prices, but will also have the potential to make supplies more unreliable.

    If the problem you are trying to solve is high energy prices, there are much better ways of tackling the problem.

    It's amazing that none of this occurred to Ed whilst he was in charge of the department ...
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Robert Colvile @rcolvile
    Crime. Welfare. Europe. Debt/deficit. Education. Immigration. Any other big areas Miliband utterly failed to mention yesterday?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Is this coincidence? The Mail have chosen a picture of Ed Balls to accompany some McBride froth showing him wearing a National Grid tee-shirt:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2431236/DAMIAN-MCBRIDE-The-day-I-woke-bed-naked-Ed-Balls.html

    National Grid seems to have sponsored the PLP football team's kit (in their annual game against the lobby and other events) for a few years now.

    Of course whereas some see nefarious connections between, say, the big 6 paying for stands at the Tory conference there is nothing wrong whatsoever with them (or companies like Grid) bunging Labour lots of money.

    Even if Labour set up the regulatory system that they now say has led to consumers being fleeced.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited September 2013
    Mr. Vale, nuclear counts as carbon free, I believe. But I don't know if (starting in 2015 assuming the dreaded Age of Miliband dawns) whether 15 years would be enough time to build all the necessary reactors.

    Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, that local story was quite amusing. I'm unsurprised that the sado-masochists are ready, willing and able to tighten their belts, even if it seems like a painful process.
  • SMukesh said:

    antifrank said:

    The speech matters really for only one thing: Ed Miliband has decided to fight the next election as Red Ed. For the first time in a generation, business will uniformly strongly support the Conservatives.

    Energy costs are hugely important for many businesses, who might like the idea prices should be reduced but would happily settle for them being predictable.

    Business for Labour!
    It is bizarre the CBI opposes this when it is business which are big winners from the freeze as well as any further reduction in the price of electricity after Ofgem is reorganised.I am sure small businesses would love this.
    Large businesses too, especially manufacturers. Furnaces don't heat themselves.

    Decades ago, when the CBI promised a bare-knuckle fight against government proposals, there wasn't a Labour government. It is a myth, probably even more true now, that Conservative governments somehow understand businesses.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650
    Plato said:

    Gareth Baines @GABaines
    Miliband effectively wiped £816,000,000 off the value of Centrica - imagine what he could do if he were Prime Minister...

    So now they the markets do think he will be Prime Minister?

    The fact that the Centrica`s share prices stayed up yesterday was quoted as bad for Miliband and as it has gone down today,this is also portrayed as bad news for Miliband!

    PB is becoming a parody of itself!
  • SMukesh said:

    Plato said:

    Gareth Baines @GABaines
    Miliband effectively wiped £816,000,000 off the value of Centrica - imagine what he could do if he were Prime Minister...

    So now they the markets do think he will be Prime Minister?

    The fact that the Centrica`s share prices stayed up yesterday was quoted as bad for Miliband and as it has gone down today,this is also portrayed as bad news for Miliband!

    PB is becoming a parody of itself!
    No, it creates uncertainty over investment which will exist to the next election. Risk and probabilities.

    Learn how the markets work first. Labour clearly don't understand them as demonstrated.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited September 2013
    "...Asked whether his government would allow any energy company to go bust because of the price freeze, he said: “That’s not going to happen. Honestly, that’s not going to happen.” [that British Leyland thing again]. He added: “Of course, if there was a major shock then companies could make their case — but I’m pretty clear that this freeze is going to happen.”

    Labour says that the price freeze, which would be implemented by primary legislation after the election, would save households an average of £120 and businesses £1,800 and cost the energy industry £4.5 billion. The industry says that the cost could be double that. Mr Miliband said that a Labour government would also create a new regulator to force through reforms of the energy market to force companies to separate their energy generation and retail divisions and introduce a simpler tariff structure...

    Angela Knight, chief executive of Energy UK, said: “Freezing the bill may be superficially attractive, but it will freeze the money to build and renew power stations, freeze the jobs and livelihoods of 600,000-plus people dependent on the energy industry and make the prospect of energy shortages a reality, pushing up prices for everyone.” http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3878554.ece
  • Miliband admits freezing energy prices could actually raise bills

    Labour leader Ed Miliband admits that energy companies may now “collude” to raise energy prices ahead of the 2015 election as a way to get around his pledge to force them to freeze prices.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10332674/Ed-Miliband-admits-pledge-to-freeze-energy-prices-could-lead-to-higher-bills-before-next-election.html

    More coin for the lawyers ahead...

    Because that would be illegal.
  • I think there is an ongoing problem with this kind of analysis and the conclusions Mike is drawing.

    Whilst it is true that the Lib Dem/Labour switchers do represent a sizable number of voters - some 1.9 million voters - it is a number that is dwarfed by comparison with the number of eligible voters who did not vote - almost 16 million of them.

    The real question for any party seems to me to be how to re-enthuse those voters and get them supporting our electoral system again. The party that can do that with any degree of success is the one that will win the next election, irrespective of what Lib Dem switchers (or UKIP) are doing.

    Precisely!

    Getting 'DNV/NOTA' out to vote is the key to winning - not just a (relative) handful of waverers and muddle-minded morons. The percentage of these has been growing rapidly in recent GEs (even more so in all other elections) and the reason seems clear enough - "All politicians are the same (in it for themselves/unprincipled/liars/smooth-talking b******s etc) and none them have a clue/will make any difference/can solve our problems (personal, company, national, global) - so what's the point in my voting?"

    The answer is equally obvious too - inspire and lead.

    Sadly, only three of the current generation of UK politicians can do that - Farage, Galloway and Salmond - and none of them will ever be PM.
  • SMukesh said:

    antifrank said:

    The speech matters really for only one thing: Ed Miliband has decided to fight the next election as Red Ed. For the first time in a generation, business will uniformly strongly support the Conservatives.

    Energy costs are hugely important for many businesses, who might like the idea prices should be reduced but would happily settle for them being predictable.

    Business for Labour!
    It is bizarre the CBI opposes this when it is business which are big winners from the freeze as well as any further reduction in the price of electricity after Ofgem is reorganised.I am sure small businesses would love this.
    The problem though is if business let him do this to the energy industry, who is next in the firing line...

    Mr Miliband insisted that that his legal advice was that he would “absolutely” be able to freeze energy prices.
    He also indicated that he could be prepared to intervene in other areas like the food and petrol industries if those markets are also deemed to have “failed”.
  • The Tories are going to have to come up with something better than "It cannot be done", I'm afraid. Populism is powerful - as the Tories have discovered with their attacks on welfare claimants and their immigration rhetoric.

    What EdM has latched onto is the fact that there can be left wing populism as well as right wing populism. And as he knows from experience that it is very hard to counter.

    With the Tories painting Labour as the party of shirkers and the immigrant hordes; and Labour painting the Tories as the party of the big energy companies and property speculators it looks like we are going to be getting a thoroughly unedifying and vacuous GE campaign, with neither party speaking to the country as a whole.
  • Mr. Vale, isn't the petrol price massively inflated by fuel duty and VAT?

    Miliband appears to be targeting areas where government action (often due to the greenery to which he is devoted) has caused costs to rise, and then he attacks the companies involved for costs rising.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983


    Getting 'DNV/NOTA' out to vote is the key to winning

    Can I hazard a guess that you've never been involved in contesting a close fought election?
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650

    SMukesh said:

    antifrank said:

    The speech matters really for only one thing: Ed Miliband has decided to fight the next election as Red Ed. For the first time in a generation, business will uniformly strongly support the Conservatives.

    Energy costs are hugely important for many businesses, who might like the idea prices should be reduced but would happily settle for them being predictable.

    Business for Labour!
    It is bizarre the CBI opposes this when it is business which are big winners from the freeze as well as any further reduction in the price of electricity after Ofgem is reorganised.I am sure small businesses would love this.
    The problem though is if business let him do this to the energy industry, who is next in the firing line...

    Mr Miliband insisted that that his legal advice was that he would “absolutely” be able to freeze energy prices.
    He also indicated that he could be prepared to intervene in other areas like the food and petrol industries if those markets are also deemed to have “failed”.
    Miliband has made it clear he won`t intervene in the Supermarket industry `as there is sufficient comptetition`.

    ASDA doesn`t raise it`s prices when TESCO does and they compete on quality and prices.

    Whereas in the Energy industry,they all raise their prices together.
  • The Tories are going to have to come up with something better than "It cannot be done", I'm afraid. Populism is powerful - as the Tories have discovered with their attacks on welfare claimants and their immigration rhetoric.

    What EdM has latched onto is the fact that there can be left wing populism as well as right wing populism. And as he knows from experience that it is very hard to counter.

    With the Tories painting Labour as the party of shirkers and the immigrant hordes; and Labour painting the Tories as the party of the big energy companies and property speculators it looks like we are going to be getting a thoroughly unedifying and vacuous GE campaign, with neither party speaking to the country as a whole.

    As a businessman, how important is security of supply to your business?
  • Plato said:

    "...Asked whether his government would allow any energy company to go bust because of the price freeze, he said: “That’s not going to happen. Honestly, that’s not going to happen.” [that British Leyland thing again]. He added: “Of course, if there was a major shock then companies could make their case — but I’m pretty clear that this freeze is going to happen.”

    Labour says that the price freeze, which would be implemented by primary legislation after the election, would save households an average of £120 and businesses £1,800 and cost the energy industry £4.5 billion. The industry says that the cost could be double that. Mr Miliband said that a Labour government would also create a new regulator to force through reforms of the energy market to force companies to separate their energy generation and retail divisions and introduce a simpler tariff structure...

    Angela Knight, chief executive of Energy UK, said: “Freezing the bill may be superficially attractive, but it will freeze the money to build and renew power stations, freeze the jobs and livelihoods of 600,000-plus people dependent on the energy industry and make the prospect of energy shortages a reality, pushing up prices for everyone.” http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3878554.ece

    Is that the Angela Knight who used to defend bankers and before that was a Tory MP?

  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323

    The Tories are going to have to come up with something better than "It cannot be done", I'm afraid. Populism is powerful - as the Tories have discovered with their attacks on welfare claimants and their immigration rhetoric.

    What EdM has latched onto is the fact that there can be left wing populism as well as right wing populism. And as he knows from experience that it is very hard to counter.

    With the Tories painting Labour as the party of shirkers and the immigrant hordes; and Labour painting the Tories as the party of the big energy companies and property speculators it looks like we are going to be getting a thoroughly unedifying and vacuous GE campaign, with neither party speaking to the country as a whole.

    "It can't be done" is eying for a U-turn.

    Also on the wider picture, if a freeze is about certainty for consumers, then "it can't be done" or "it'll distort the energy market" is a complete lack of certainty. I suspect this may be behind the CBI's objection as well.
  • Funny how the Tories on here are complaining about the "Green taxes" adding to energy bills but not the 5% VAT (originally 8%) they imposed on fuel bills in their time in government. That's £5 on a £100/month bill.

    Please do keep up!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1kJyLGUKxE

    Eighties' Nights happen after 9:00pm.
  • Mr. Vale, nuclear counts as carbon free, I believe. But I don't know if (starting in 2015 assuming the dreaded Age of Miliband dawns) whether 15 years would be enough time to build all the necessary reactors.

    Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, that local story was quite amusing. I'm unsurprised that the sado-masochists are ready, willing and able to tighten their belts, even if it seems like a painful process.

    Ah yes I forgot about nuclear, although that isn't that cheap either and as you say takes a long time to build.
  • Jonathan said:

    One would hope that ex-LibDem voters would be sane enough to realise that a five-year old saying "Daddy, why doesn't the government just pass a law so you can afford to buy me a new bicycle?" does not make a coherent policy package, but we shall see.

    You've completely lost your mind on this energy policy. The fixed price product that Ed is talking about is already in the market place. A more realistic attack would be to argue that the policy is unnecessary (as consumers can fix their price if they choose) or does not go far enough to address the problem.
    When a company fixes a price, it does so at a price of its own choosing, though obviously also at one it thinks it can sell, for a duration of its own choosing, and usually after assuring itself of some control over its own costs, either through a forward agreement with its own suppliers or similar. It can therefore control and plan the fixed-price product. That is wholly different from having a fixed price imposed externally.

    The problem is not so much the 18 months of price-freeze, which the companies could survive, though with some financial damage that will affect investment down the line, it's about the fact that the government will have fundamentally changed the rules of the game. After all, if it can impose price constraints once, what's to stop it doing so again? That uncertainty will make the UK a seriously unatractive place to do business in the energy market, or in others where the participants feel the government might make similar populist interventions.


  • Sesin
    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    antifrank said:

    The speech matters really for only one thing: Ed Miliband has decided to fight the next election as Red Ed. For the first time in a generation, business will uniformly strongly support the Conservatives.

    Energy costs are hugely important for many businesses, who might like the idea prices should be reduced but would happily settle for them being predictable.

    Business for Labour!
    It is bizarre the CBI opposes this when it is business which are big winners from the freeze as well as any further reduction in the price of electricity after Ofgem is reorganised.I am sure small businesses would love this.
    The problem though is if business let him do this to the energy industry, who is next in the firing line...

    Mr Miliband insisted that that his legal advice was that he would “absolutely” be able to freeze energy prices.
    He also indicated that he could be prepared to intervene in other areas like the food and petrol industries if those markets are also deemed to have “failed”.
    Miliband has made it clear he won`t intervene in the Supermarket industry `as there is sufficient comptetition`.

    ASDA doesn`t raise it`s prices when TESCO does and they compete on quality and prices.

    Whereas in the Energy industry,they all raise their prices together.
    Seeing as they buy the energy from the same wholesale market that's hardly suprising.

    Again, proving that you and Ed don't know how the energy market works.
  • RedRag1RedRag1 Posts: 527

    RedRag1 said:

    "If this group stays with LAB then it is hard to see how Ed Miliband will not become PM" - No matter how many times people say this, there are some on here who just will not accept it.

    You're wrong on that- most people on here accept that Milliband as PM is a probability, but not inevitable, given the way things are going, and the vagaries of FPTP. In a hung parliament, maybe, put PM none the less.

    You're too fixated on getting the word "Hodges" into your posts to see it.
    TFS - That is why I stated "some people" and not "most people".
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    edited September 2013
    Something else that's been overlooked in Ed's speech was his statement that we cannot compete with the Far East and India.

    I can't remember his exact words, but he admiited it is pointless us depressing wages in an attempt to produce goods as cheaply as the Chinese.

    I agree we can't compete. And our lack of manufacturing competitiveness is fundamental to the economic future of the UK. We cannot manufacture goods as competitively as China can. That's a fact.

    And Ed is right, and actually quite brave, to point it out. I wish he had elaborated on it, because I'd like to know what the answers are for a country like the UK.

    Even as a capitalist and someone who believes in the free market, as most of us do, I defy anyone not to look at Detroit (okay, I know corruption had as much to do with that as manufacturing decline) or places like Winchester in America (as brilliantly outlined in Joe Bageant's Deer Hunting With Jesus) and not be fearful for the future.

    Bageant doesn't come up with any answers to American industrial decline, and is an unabashed socialist, but his account of blue collar Americans, working hard all their lives for a manufacturing giant before a) starting to see their living standards decline, b) doing more for less, c) discovering their benefits and insurances don't cover what they thought they'd cover, d) submitting to further pay decreases or else jobs be shipped out to Mexico, or China or somewhere cheaper and eventually e) ending up dirt poor, in homes they can't afford and with no state assistance, whilst the multinational company gets richer and richer, is a siren note for us here in the UK.

    We are heading in that direction. Energy bills, tax bills, food prices, mortgage payments, the cost of living are all becoming unafforable to people who want to live the same standard of life their parents lived. Our government can't afford to sustain our living standards. They can't afford it now; just look at the £100bilion deficit. God help what it will be like in twenty years when we have millions more pensioners.

    I don't think Ed Miliband has the answers. But he was brave to bring it up in his speech. Because these are the big issues facing us in the future. We can all retreat to our comfy capitalist soundbites and decry the uselessness of socialism, but the answers to our future need a lot of future home truths.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083

    Plato said:

    "...Asked whether his government would allow any energy company to go bust because of the price freeze, he said: “That’s not going to happen. Honestly, that’s not going to happen.” [that British Leyland thing again]. He added: “Of course, if there was a major shock then companies could make their case — but I’m pretty clear that this freeze is going to happen.”

    Labour says that the price freeze, which would be implemented by primary legislation after the election, would save households an average of £120 and businesses £1,800 and cost the energy industry £4.5 billion. The industry says that the cost could be double that. Mr Miliband said that a Labour government would also create a new regulator to force through reforms of the energy market to force companies to separate their energy generation and retail divisions and introduce a simpler tariff structure...

    Angela Knight, chief executive of Energy UK, said: “Freezing the bill may be superficially attractive, but it will freeze the money to build and renew power stations, freeze the jobs and livelihoods of 600,000-plus people dependent on the energy industry and make the prospect of energy shortages a reality, pushing up prices for everyone.” http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3878554.ece

    Is that the Angela Knight who used to defend bankers and before that was a Tory MP?

    Yep. She gets all the best jobs.
  • RedRag1RedRag1 Posts: 527

    The Tories are going to have to come up with something better than "It cannot be done", I'm afraid. Populism is powerful - as the Tories have discovered with their attacks on welfare claimants and their immigration rhetoric.

    What EdM has latched onto is the fact that there can be left wing populism as well as right wing populism. And as he knows from experience that it is very hard to counter.

    With the Tories painting Labour as the party of shirkers and the immigrant hordes; and Labour painting the Tories as the party of the big energy companies and property speculators it looks like we are going to be getting a thoroughly unedifying and vacuous GE campaign, with neither party speaking to the country as a whole.

    People wanted clear blue/red water between the main two parties, looks like we will have to take the sewerage that comes along with it.
  • Plato said:

    "...Asked whether his government would allow any energy company to go bust because of the price freeze, he said: “That’s not going to happen. Honestly, that’s not going to happen.” [that British Leyland thing again]. He added: “Of course, if there was a major shock then companies could make their case — but I’m pretty clear that this freeze is going to happen.”

    Labour says that the price freeze, which would be implemented by primary legislation after the election, would save households an average of £120 and businesses £1,800 and cost the energy industry £4.5 billion. The industry says that the cost could be double that. Mr Miliband said that a Labour government would also create a new regulator to force through reforms of the energy market to force companies to separate their energy generation and retail divisions and introduce a simpler tariff structure...

    Angela Knight, chief executive of Energy UK, said: “Freezing the bill may be superficially attractive, but it will freeze the money to build and renew power stations, freeze the jobs and livelihoods of 600,000-plus people dependent on the energy industry and make the prospect of energy shortages a reality, pushing up prices for everyone.” http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3878554.ece

    Is that the Angela Knight who used to defend bankers and before that was a Tory MP?

    Indeed. And her next planned career move is to spearhead the British Property Federation's campaign in defence of land hoarding.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    The Tories are going to have to come up with something better than "It cannot be done", I'm afraid. Populism is powerful - as the Tories have discovered with their attacks on welfare claimants and their immigration rhetoric.

    What EdM has latched onto is the fact that there can be left wing populism as well as right wing populism. And as he knows from experience that it is very hard to counter.

    With the Tories painting Labour as the party of shirkers and the immigrant hordes; and Labour painting the Tories as the party of the big energy companies and property speculators it looks like we are going to be getting a thoroughly unedifying and vacuous GE campaign, with neither party speaking to the country as a whole.

    Actually the the issue isn't "it cannot be done", it's, there are better ways of doing it ( ironic that after Ed's speech ). Assuming of course that "it" means putting more money in ordinary people's pockets.

    The LibDems came up with the best way and that was by continuing to lift the low paid out of tax altogether. To date none of the other parties have come up with a better or more directly effective idea.
  • I'm currently reading the McBride book.

    I feel I need a shower.

    If you read this book and Tom Bower's book, how the hell did Labour let Brown and his team become leader?

    All the warning signs were there.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    SMukesh said:

    antifrank said:

    The speech matters really for only one thing: Ed Miliband has decided to fight the next election as Red Ed. For the first time in a generation, business will uniformly strongly support the Conservatives.

    Energy costs are hugely important for many businesses, who might like the idea prices should be reduced but would happily settle for them being predictable.

    Business for Labour!
    It is bizarre the CBI opposes this when it is business which are big winners from the freeze as well as any further reduction in the price of electricity after Ofgem is reorganised.I am sure small businesses would love this.
    The problem though is if business let him do this to the energy industry, who is next in the firing line...

    Mr Miliband insisted that that his legal advice was that he would “absolutely” be able to freeze energy prices.
    He also indicated that he could be prepared to intervene in other areas like the food and petrol industries if those markets are also deemed to have “failed”.
    I'm old enough to remember when Pickford's Removals and Thomas Cook were also nationalised - mission creep when HMG starts down this road knows no bounds.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083



    Sesin

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    antifrank said:

    The speech matters really for only one thing: Ed Miliband has decided to fight the next election as Red Ed. For the first time in a generation, business will uniformly strongly support the Conservatives.

    Energy costs are hugely important for many businesses, who might like the idea prices should be reduced but would happily settle for them being predictable.

    Business for Labour!
    It is bizarre the CBI opposes this when it is business which are big winners from the freeze as well as any further reduction in the price of electricity after Ofgem is reorganised.I am sure small businesses would love this.
    The problem though is if business let him do this to the energy industry, who is next in the firing line...

    Mr Miliband insisted that that his legal advice was that he would “absolutely” be able to freeze energy prices.
    He also indicated that he could be prepared to intervene in other areas like the food and petrol industries if those markets are also deemed to have “failed”.
    Miliband has made it clear he won`t intervene in the Supermarket industry `as there is sufficient comptetition`.

    ASDA doesn`t raise it`s prices when TESCO does and they compete on quality and prices.

    Whereas in the Energy industry,they all raise their prices together.
    Seeing as they buy the energy from the same wholesale market that's hardly suprising.

    Again, proving that you and Ed don't know how the energy market works.
    Isn't the point of a competitive market that they, er, compete? So you'd expect some companies to attempt to make efficiency savings to avoid passing on a price rise or (shock) decide to reduce their margins in order to win more market share... and so on. You can reasonably argue that the overall wholesale cost and regulatory climate is going to contribute to an upward trajectory for all firms' supply prices, but that doesn't mean that prices should march in step to the degree that currently appears to be the case.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650



    Sesin

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    antifrank said:

    The speech matters really for only one thing: Ed Miliband has decided to fight the next election as Red Ed. For the first time in a generation, business will uniformly strongly support the Conservatives.

    Energy costs are hugely important for many businesses, who might like the idea prices should be reduced but would happily settle for them being predictable.

    Business for Labour!
    It is bizarre the CBI opposes this when it is business which are big winners from the freeze as well as any further reduction in the price of electricity after Ofgem is reorganised.I am sure small businesses would love this.
    The problem though is if business let him do this to the energy industry, who is next in the firing line...

    Mr Miliband insisted that that his legal advice was that he would “absolutely” be able to freeze energy prices.
    He also indicated that he could be prepared to intervene in other areas like the food and petrol industries if those markets are also deemed to have “failed”.
    Miliband has made it clear he won`t intervene in the Supermarket industry `as there is sufficient comptetition`.

    ASDA doesn`t raise it`s prices when TESCO does and they compete on quality and prices.

    Whereas in the Energy industry,they all raise their prices together.
    Seeing as they buy the energy from the same wholesale market that's hardly suprising.

    Again, proving that you and Ed don't know how the energy market works.
    Perhaps if one company did things more efficiently and lowered its price,it could make up the profit through volume and thus offer better value for customers.

    But why innovate when you are getting a 10% increase in prices year on year and development subsidised by the taxpayer.
  • Neil said:

    National Grid seems to have sponsored the PLP football team's kit (in their annual game against the lobby and other events) for a few years now.

    Of course whereas some see nefarious connections between, say, the big 6 paying for stands at the Tory conference there is nothing wrong whatsoever with them (or companies like Grid) bunging Labour lots of money.

    Even if Labour set up the regulatory system that they now say has led to consumers being fleeced.

    Isn't Oirish 'hockey' about tripping-up your assailants and kneeing them in their "discomfort-zones"? Regulation and fairness from a "Green" Donegal-lad: Me-thinks not....
  • Fenster said:


    We are heading in that direction. Energy bills, tax bills, food prices, mortgage payments, the cost of living are all becoming unafforable to people who want to live the same standard of life their parents lived. Our government can't afford to sustain our living standards. They can't afford it now; just look at the £100bilion deficit. God help what it will be like in twenty years when we have millions more pensioners.

    I don't think Ed Miliband has the answers. But he was brave to bring it up in his speech. Because these are the big issues facing us in the future. We can all retreat to our comfy capitalist soundbites and decry the uselessness of socialism, but the answers to our future need a lot of future home truths.

    Good point, and we should all feel a little guilty. Where has the inventiveness gone? If people want improving lifestyles, how do we achieve that goal? How can we organise our leisure time more effectively (and more equitably)?
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    Plato said:

    SMukesh said:

    antifrank said:

    The speech matters really for only one thing: Ed Miliband has decided to fight the next election as Red Ed. For the first time in a generation, business will uniformly strongly support the Conservatives.

    Energy costs are hugely important for many businesses, who might like the idea prices should be reduced but would happily settle for them being predictable.

    Business for Labour!
    It is bizarre the CBI opposes this when it is business which are big winners from the freeze as well as any further reduction in the price of electricity after Ofgem is reorganised.I am sure small businesses would love this.
    The problem though is if business let him do this to the energy industry, who is next in the firing line...

    Mr Miliband insisted that that his legal advice was that he would “absolutely” be able to freeze energy prices.
    He also indicated that he could be prepared to intervene in other areas like the food and petrol industries if those markets are also deemed to have “failed”.
    I'm old enough to remember when Pickford's Removals and Thomas Cook were also nationalised - mission creep when HMG starts down this road knows no bounds.
    OK, so I wasn't even around for British Gas. However it is obvious to me that price controls, rent controls, wage controls, supply controls, and nationalised industry (particularly physical goods) were part of a system. If you look at Eagle's comments on the rail network you'll find the same tendency to intervene in a myriad of ways into the core of free market operation.
  • I didn't see the whole speech, so can't comment on the whole of it, but from the soundbites I saw, he came over quite well. He looked confident.
    I don't know whether his energy policy is feasible, or if it will unravel over the next few days, but I can understand that it will be popular, and welcomed by the average guy on the street. That sort of lefty policy, and the housebuilding idea,is something that might get him a majority....I still think he's not up to the task of PM, mind.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Quite - when the price of wheat or coffee beans or oranges rise on the wholesale market - all the supermarkets raise their prices - they may be a penny here or there different from week to week but they reflect the real cost on the commodity market.



    Sesin

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    antifrank said:

    The speech matters really for only one thing: Ed Miliband has decided to fight the next election as Red Ed. For the first time in a generation, business will uniformly strongly support the Conservatives.

    Energy costs are hugely important for many businesses, who might like the idea prices should be reduced but would happily settle for them being predictable.

    Business for Labour!
    It is bizarre the CBI opposes this when it is business which are big winners from the freeze as well as any further reduction in the price of electricity after Ofgem is reorganised.I am sure small businesses would love this.
    The problem though is if business let him do this to the energy industry, who is next in the firing line...

    Mr Miliband insisted that that his legal advice was that he would “absolutely” be able to freeze energy prices.
    He also indicated that he could be prepared to intervene in other areas like the food and petrol industries if those markets are also deemed to have “failed”.
    Miliband has made it clear he won`t intervene in the Supermarket industry `as there is sufficient comptetition`.

    ASDA doesn`t raise it`s prices when TESCO does and they compete on quality and prices.

    Whereas in the Energy industry,they all raise their prices together.
    Seeing as they buy the energy from the same wholesale market that's hardly suprising.

    Again, proving that you and Ed don't know how the energy market works.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263

    There is a simple reason why Mike will disagree with that, and it's that he lost [some] money at the 2010 election because of people who told opinion pollsters that they would vote Lib Dem, but who then did not bother to go out to vote at all.

    Time after time people talk about appealing to people who did not vote - I remember reams of analysis from Patrick before the last election on why an increased turnout would produce a thumping Conservative victory - but it is never that simple.

    I would also argue that there are structural reasons why turnout is lower now than in the past, to do with a greater number of people being registered to vote at more than one address, because of second homes, split families, university and moving around the country for work. As I've said before, I was registered to vote in three different constituencies for the 2001 general election, but I only voted once, so my personal turnout figure would have been recorded as 33.3%.

    Since I support the integrity of our voting system, there was no way for any party to enthuse me to increase my turnout to 100%.

    Good post. In general, it is easier to persuade someone who voted for another party to vote for you than it is to persuade a non-voter. You may think you've won over non-voters, but come election day you find they still don't turn out (obviously with some exceptions). There are some streets where turnout is 20% and all the parties have just given up on the ground game there - you are better employed canvassing even the most hostile ward than arguing with someone who basically doesn't give a toss.

    It is possible to argue that this is the fault of the parties and if only we had sensible policies attuned to non-voters, turnout would jump. UKIP is banking heavily on that, and they record high "certainty to vote" figures so they might be right, but I wonder.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Grandiose said:

    If you look at Eagle's comments on the rail network you'll find the same tendency to intervene in a myriad of ways into the core of free market operation.

    The rail network is hardly a free market operation.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    Plato said:

    Quite - when the price of wheat or coffee beans or oranges rise on the wholesale market - all the supermarkets raise their prices - they may be a penny here or there different from week to week but they reflect the real cost on the commodity market.



    Sesin

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    antifrank said:

    The speech matters really for only one thing: Ed Miliband has decided to fight the next election as Red Ed. For the first time in a generation, business will uniformly strongly support the Conservatives.

    Energy costs are hugely important for many businesses, who might like the idea prices should be reduced but would happily settle for them being predictable.

    Business for Labour!
    It is bizarre the CBI opposes this when it is business which are big winners from the freeze as well as any further reduction in the price of electricity after Ofgem is reorganised.I am sure small businesses would love this.
    The problem though is if business let him do this to the energy industry, who is next in the firing line...

    Mr Miliband insisted that that his legal advice was that he would “absolutely” be able to freeze energy prices.
    He also indicated that he could be prepared to intervene in other areas like the food and petrol industries if those markets are also deemed to have “failed”.
    Miliband has made it clear he won`t intervene in the Supermarket industry `as there is sufficient comptetition`.

    ASDA doesn`t raise it`s prices when TESCO does and they compete on quality and prices.

    Whereas in the Energy industry,they all raise their prices together.
    Seeing as they buy the energy from the same wholesale market that's hardly suprising.

    Again, proving that you and Ed don't know how the energy market works.
    My pint of milk went from 49p to 50p then to 49p at the same time in Tesco and Sainsbury's, that I do know.
  • The Tories are going to have to come up with something better than "It cannot be done", I'm afraid. Populism is powerful - as the Tories have discovered with their attacks on welfare claimants and their immigration rhetoric.

    What EdM has latched onto is the fact that there can be left wing populism as well as right wing populism. And as he knows from experience that it is very hard to counter.

    With the Tories painting Labour as the party of shirkers and the immigrant hordes; and Labour painting the Tories as the party of the big energy companies and property speculators it looks like we are going to be getting a thoroughly unedifying and vacuous GE campaign, with neither party speaking to the country as a whole.

    As a businessman, how important is security of supply to your business?

    It is absolutely vital, as is access to the very best talent - wherever in the world that may come from.

    I am not defending what Ed said. I am not sure what I think about it, though I doubt it will lead to the apocalypse predicted by some on here. I am commenting on the politics of it. It is left wing populism and it very effectively latches on to what I think is a widespread feeling in the country that big businesses, such as those we see in the energy sector, are screwing ordinary people. The Tories would do well to accept that people do feel this way, just as Labour has had to accept that the pendulum has swung on welfare and immigration.

This discussion has been closed.