Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Nighthawks is now open

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited September 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Nighthawks is now open

Why not relax, and converse into the night on the day’s events in PB NightHawks.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited September 2013
    Let the PB Hodges hysteria begin! (yet again) ;)
  • Advantage Labour :)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited September 2013
    Ed M did ok. If his policy pronouncements end up being silly and unworkable that will emerge in time, but for now some of them at least are popular sounding.

    But I simply cannot believe energy companies do not overcharge us, the continual rises take the piss far too much for that. Bobajob's link is what most people think of about them, that even for big companies they egregiously gouge us, for no noticable gain in service, or even maintenance of service, but just a change of name at the top of the bill.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited September 2013
    kle4 said:

    Ed M did ok. If his policy pronouncements end up being silly and unworkable that will emerge in time, but for now some of them at least are popular sounding.

    But I simply cannot believe energy companies do not overcharge us, the continual rises take the piss far too much for that.

    Quite.

    Regardless of whether little Ed's pledge stays firm or turns into an aspiration there's going to be an intense spotlight on their pricing now, and not before time.

    I also strongly doubt there will be too many politicians 'brave' or foolhardy enough to unquestioningly stick up for those energy companies and their prices.

    Cammie also promised to force energy companies into lower prices remember.
    Bit hard to then posture on their behalf after that.

  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Ed's energy-price-freezing policy might be bullshit, but at least he talks sense on housebuilding.

    Limit H2B to new builds & policies to disincentivise land-banking. That I like.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,391
    Hilarious start in this evening's sailing. NZL look like the keystone cops at the moment.
  • R0bertsR0berts Posts: 391
    The only danger for Ed Miliband in this energy price freeze promise is if he can actually keep to it when he gets into power.

    That's not a bad place for an opposition.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    I imagine reaction to the Ed speech will be 'Great. Someone sticking up for the little guys.' Followed by, 'Oh hang on, politicians are little guys too.'

    Nice try though. If only.
  • I was impressed by Ed's speech today (there were some off bits) but the main messages will resonate.

    The main thing he and Labour need to prepared for is the assault that is coming his way, from the Govt (both the Tories and Lib Dems) over his proposals, do they add up/are they feasible/legal etc.

    Ed's biggest mistake today was to make things personal, (his reference to not taking his shirt off like Dave).

    That's given the green light to the Tories to make their attacks on Ed even more personal.

    Even his warmest admirers will admit, on the looks and personality front, Ed will struggle
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453


    The main thing he and Labour need to prepared for is the assault that is coming his way, from the Govt (both the Tories and Lib Dems) over his proposals, do they add up/are they feasible/legal etc.

    @itvnews: Lawyer tells @ITVLauraK an energy price freeze could leave Labour open to challenges in the courts http://t.co/BJ8qwnnyvT
  • Bobajob said:
    So you can't answer the question I posed in the previous thread. As an example of why we need healthy energy companies, see the result of the mess that Miliband created when he was at DECC:

    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2428955/UK-requires-38-new-power-stations-government-hit-green-energy-targets.html

    The figures on energy are staggering. A billion doesn't buy you much generating capacity, even when it is a gas plant. The new 2GW Pembroke plant cost a billion to construct.

    Maybe the companies are making excess profit; they are certainly guilty of being secretive. But the most important factor that has to be borne in mind is energy security, and Miliband's evidently got no idea about that. He didn't when he was at DECC; he doesn't now.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    Scott_P said:


    The main thing he and Labour need to prepared for is the assault that is coming his way, from the Govt (both the Tories and Lib Dems) over his proposals, do they add up/are they feasible/legal etc.

    @itvnews: Lawyer tells @ITVLauraK an energy price freeze could leave Labour open to challenges in the courts http://t.co/BJ8qwnnyvT
    'Labour's energy price controls frowned on, but legal, European Commission tells the FT. #lab13' robinbrant RT
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Mick_Pork said:

    kle4 said:

    Ed M did ok. If his policy pronouncements end up being silly and unworkable that will emerge in time, but for now some of them at least are popular sounding.

    But I simply cannot believe energy companies do not overcharge us, the continual rises take the piss far too much for that.

    Quite.

    Regardless of whether little Ed's pledge stays firm or turns into an aspiration there's going to be an intense spotlight on their pricing now, and not before time.

    I also strongly doubt there will be too many politicians 'brave' or foolhardy enough to unquestioningly stick up for those energy companies and their prices.

    Cammie also promised to force energy companies into lower prices remember.
    Bit hard to then posture on their behalf after that.

    Someone on the last thread suggested removing the green charges on energy bills and funding them out of general taxation.

    So long as you could be sure the energy companies don't pinch the benefit, that would strick me as a sensible use of any extra money George can find down the back of the sofa. Direct consumer benefit (think they said £120 per consumer) - should feed through into spending - albeit expensive (£120 * 30m homes = £3.5bn). Shoots Ed's fox as well.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Mick_Pork said:

    Let the PB Hodges hysteria begin! (yet again) ;)

    I can't wait to read Nabavi, Plato and Fitalass et al stand up for the social benefit which the energy companies bring to us !
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Scott_P said:


    The main thing he and Labour need to prepared for is the assault that is coming his way, from the Govt (both the Tories and Lib Dems) over his proposals, do they add up/are they feasible/legal etc.

    @itvnews: Lawyer tells @ITVLauraK an energy price freeze could leave Labour open to challenges in the courts http://t.co/BJ8qwnnyvT
    That could be good news for labour,labour fighting for the people,thats how it looks to me.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,770
    edited September 2013
    These people are not going to hold back:

    "Centrica, which supplies energy to 12m households, issued its stark warning in an unusually strongly-worded statement condemning Ed Miliband's proposal.

    "If prices were to be controlled against a background of rising costs it would simply not be economically viable for Centrica, or indeed any other energy supplier, to continue to operate and far less to meet the sizeable investment challenge that the industry is facing," it said.

    "The impact of such a policy would be damaging for the country’s long term prosperity and for our customers.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10331960/Centrica-claims-Labours-energy-price-freeze-could-put-it-out-of-business.html

    We need £120bn of new power stations like now. This is partly because of the incompetence of the last government in getting replacement capacity in place. Step forward Ed. It has not been helped by dithering and time wasting on green rubbish by the Lib Dems. Step forward another Ed (is there something in the name?)

    Let's face it the power companies have us by the short and curlies in a grip which means we have to crawl to them to get what we need. Such are the glories of spending useful money on windmillsand avoiding decisions on nuclear.

    This policy is bordering on reckless.
  • Charles said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    kle4 said:

    Ed M did ok. If his policy pronouncements end up being silly and unworkable that will emerge in time, but for now some of them at least are popular sounding.

    But I simply cannot believe energy companies do not overcharge us, the continual rises take the piss far too much for that.

    Quite.

    Regardless of whether little Ed's pledge stays firm or turns into an aspiration there's going to be an intense spotlight on their pricing now, and not before time.

    I also strongly doubt there will be too many politicians 'brave' or foolhardy enough to unquestioningly stick up for those energy companies and their prices.

    Cammie also promised to force energy companies into lower prices remember.
    Bit hard to then posture on their behalf after that.

    Someone on the last thread suggested removing the green charges on energy bills and funding them out of general taxation.

    So long as you could be sure the energy companies don't pinch the benefit, that would strick me as a sensible use of any extra money George can find down the back of the sofa. Direct consumer benefit (think they said £120 per consumer) - should feed through into spending - albeit expensive (£120 * 30m homes = £3.5bn). Shoots Ed's fox as well.
    Except part of the point of the green taxes on fuel is to try to reduce consumption. If the price goes up, people will find ways to use less energy. Remove the taxation directly from the energy bills, and they may use more.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Wait til the lights go out because of lack of investment in power generation; Ed may be in the frame then.

    SSE is the only major power company in the FTSE, it went up after the speech, so the city does not seem worried.


    surbiton said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    Let the PB Hodges hysteria begin! (yet again) ;)

    I can't wait to read Nabavi, Plato and Fitalass et al stand up for the social benefit which the energy companies bring to us !
  • @DavidL

    If only Ed had been Energy Secretary in the last Labour government, we wouldn't have these energy problems.

    Oh...
  • Scott_P said:


    The main thing he and Labour need to prepared for is the assault that is coming his way, from the Govt (both the Tories and Lib Dems) over his proposals, do they add up/are they feasible/legal etc.

    @itvnews: Lawyer tells @ITVLauraK an energy price freeze could leave Labour open to challenges in the courts http://t.co/BJ8qwnnyvT
    That could be good news for labour,labour fighting for the people,thats how it looks to me.

    Depends who you mean by the people. In 1980s South Yorkshire, there was a belief that it was the people against the government. It wasn't. It was the mining communities against other people in the local areas, and just about every one outside.

    For example, many people (not the public sector) have pensions that are dependent on stock market performance. These are the real owners of Centrica, etc. Labour will be getting into a fight against them.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    surbiton said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    Let the PB Hodges hysteria begin! (yet again) ;)

    I can't wait to read Nabavi, Plato and Fitalass et al stand up for the social benefit which the energy companies bring to us !
    The social benefit they bring us is energy, that's why they're called energy companies. Have you tried living without energy ?
  • R0bertsR0berts Posts: 391
    DavidL said:

    These people are not going to hold back:

    "Centrica, which supplies energy to 12m households, issued its stark warning in an unusually strongly-worded statement condemning Ed Miliband's proposal.

    Exactly what Miliband would want.

    Do you realise just how unpopular these companies and their practices are?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Charles said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    kle4 said:

    Ed M did ok. If his policy pronouncements end up being silly and unworkable that will emerge in time, but for now some of them at least are popular sounding.

    But I simply cannot believe energy companies do not overcharge us, the continual rises take the piss far too much for that.

    Quite.

    Regardless of whether little Ed's pledge stays firm or turns into an aspiration there's going to be an intense spotlight on their pricing now, and not before time.

    I also strongly doubt there will be too many politicians 'brave' or foolhardy enough to unquestioningly stick up for those energy companies and their prices.

    Cammie also promised to force energy companies into lower prices remember.
    Bit hard to then posture on their behalf after that.

    Someone on the last thread suggested removing the green charges on energy bills and funding them out of general taxation.

    So long as you could be sure the energy companies don't pinch the benefit, that would strick me as a sensible use of any extra money George can find down the back of the sofa. Direct consumer benefit (think they said £120 per consumer) - should feed through into spending - albeit expensive (£120 * 30m homes = £3.5bn). Shoots Ed's fox as well.
    Except part of the point of the green taxes on fuel is to try to reduce consumption. If the price goes up, people will find ways to use less energy. Remove the taxation directly from the energy bills, and they may use more.
    Yes and that is also a contingent risk. If the price drops we will use more and the rate at which we will hit a blackout will accelerate.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Labour is saying that it will confiscate private property if it does not like what people are doing with it.

    Then there is the plan to freeze energy prices for two years, which seeks to address market failure via the imposition of price controls. This deserves examination, because it is flawed in practically every detail, to the point where it is almost a blueprint for blackouts. Yes, there is a problem with energy bills – which is why this newspaper has called on the Government to break up the cosy cartels and introduce real competition. But at the same time, gas and electricity costs are largely dictated by global wholesale prices. What will Mr Miliband do if these rise? Have the Exchequer shoulder the cost, and send the deficit soaring?

    Prices are also high due to the carbon levies imposed by the first secretary of state for energy and climate change – one Ed Miliband. Not only did he fail to crack down on, or even mention, the market abuses he now decries, but his party’s years of dithering left us with a potentially crippling lack of generating capacity over the coming years.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/10331348/Ed-Miliband-returns-to-the-politics-of-the-Seventies.html
  • @Surbiton
    "I can't wait to read Nabavi, Plato and Fitalass et al stand up for the social benefit which the energy companies bring to us !"
    Let me have a go. Electricity?
  • R0berts said:

    DavidL said:

    These people are not going to hold back:

    "Centrica, which supplies energy to 12m households, issued its stark warning in an unusually strongly-worded statement condemning Ed Miliband's proposal.

    Exactly what Miliband would want.

    Do you realise just how unpopular these companies and their practices are?
    Their prices are unpopular. They may be able to pin blame for those to the politicos.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,770

    @DavidL

    If only Ed had been Energy Secretary in the last Labour government, we wouldn't have these energy problems.

    Oh...

    That is a particularly depressing aspect of this. If he understood how any part of our market economy works it really ought to be energy. I think he was too caught up with crying in Copenhagen to worry about the day job.

  • DavidL said:



    We need £120bn of new power stations like now. This is partly because of the incompetence of the last government in getting replacement capacity in place. Step forward Ed. It has not been helped by dithering and time wasting on green rubbish by the Lib Dems. Step forward another Ed (is there something in the name?)

    Let's face it the power companies have us by the short and curlies in a grip which means we have to crawl to them to get what we need. Such are the glories of spending useful money on windmillsand avoiding decisions on nuclear.

    This policy is bordering on reckless.

    "The cost of building new open-cycle gas-fired plant to meet the requirement is £13bn. What inflates the figure by a factor of eight is the commitment to do it using renewable energy and nuclear."

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/23/draft_energy_bill_wtf/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,770
    Scott_P said:

    Labour is saying that it will confiscate private property if it does not like what people are doing with it.

    Then there is the plan to freeze energy prices for two years, which seeks to address market failure via the imposition of price controls. This deserves examination, because it is flawed in practically every detail, to the point where it is almost a blueprint for blackouts. Yes, there is a problem with energy bills – which is why this newspaper has called on the Government to break up the cosy cartels and introduce real competition. But at the same time, gas and electricity costs are largely dictated by global wholesale prices. What will Mr Miliband do if these rise? Have the Exchequer shoulder the cost, and send the deficit soaring?

    Prices are also high due to the carbon levies imposed by the first secretary of state for energy and climate change – one Ed Miliband. Not only did he fail to crack down on, or even mention, the market abuses he now decries, but his party’s years of dithering left us with a potentially crippling lack of generating capacity over the coming years.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/10331348/Ed-Miliband-returns-to-the-politics-of-the-Seventies.html

    I honestly hadn't read that before I posted. I think I am turning into a Telegraph reader. Help!
  • R0berts said:

    The only danger for Ed Miliband in this energy price freeze promise is if he can actually keep to it when he gets into power.

    That's not a bad place for an opposition.

    There are so, so many more dangers than that. Two obvious ones are how would it work in practice, and is it legal?

    There are a huge number of pitfalls that the practical application would have to navigate: is the entire market to be frozen (tariffs, providers, prices and so on)? If not, how does that square with freezing prices? If so, will people be able to switch? If they can, will this not lead to people being on what could rapidly become a hugely unprofitable rate for the company/ies, especially if input prices rise. If they can't, some will be locked in to high rates (usually poorer people at that). What happens if a provider wants to withdraw? Will the government underwrite any losses incurred (in whole or in part)? There are endless questions which could cause the whole thing to fall apart.

    Likewise the legality question. The EU Commission might have given it an amber light but they're not the final arbiter and the ECJ could well come up with a different finding. Indeed, until the details are published, it'd be impossible for anyone to give a definitive answer. I don't really see how it's any different in principle from the minimum pricing policy for alcohol which was ruled out of bounds. If someone wants to pay more than the maximum (to secure supply for example), why shouldn't they be able to do so?

    It's entirely possible that Miliband or whoever's the Shadow Energy minister could end up in a car-crash of an interview trying to explain the policy.

    That said, it'll no doubt be popular in principle and that's presumably the intention.
  • Off topic - Anyone else think there's value in backing Villa to get relegated this season - 16/1 with Betfred?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453


    It's entirely possible that Miliband or whoever's the Shadow Energy minister could end up in a car-crash of an interview trying to explain the policy.

    Caroline Flint. Already happened. Andrew Neil knew much more about it than she did
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,770

    DavidL said:



    We need £120bn of new power stations like now. This is partly because of the incompetence of the last government in getting replacement capacity in place. Step forward Ed. It has not been helped by dithering and time wasting on green rubbish by the Lib Dems. Step forward another Ed (is there something in the name?)

    Let's face it the power companies have us by the short and curlies in a grip which means we have to crawl to them to get what we need. Such are the glories of spending useful money on windmillsand avoiding decisions on nuclear.

    This policy is bordering on reckless.

    "The cost of building new open-cycle gas-fired plant to meet the requirement is £13bn. What inflates the figure by a factor of eight is the commitment to do it using renewable energy and nuclear."

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/23/draft_energy_bill_wtf/
    That is a really interesting link. Thanks.

  • Mr. Herdson, although politics is thankfully not as vile as the McBride/Draper/Campbell era it's still reprehensible that a politician is spouting a policy which he either knows is likely to be illegal or which he doesn't (which may be even worse).

    Thankfully we have an objective, intelligent and straightforward media to explain the state of play to the electorate. Ahem.
  • Off topic - Anyone else think there's value in backing Villa to get relegated this season - 16/1 with Betfred?

    Nah - that was the reserve team tonight. Sunderland, Palace, Norwich are the favourites for the drop I reckon.

  • Off topic - Anyone else think there's value in backing Villa to get relegated this season - 16/1 with Betfred?

    Nah - that was the reserve team tonight. Sunderland, Palace, Norwich are the favourites for the drop I reckon.

    That explains it.

    Plus VIlla lost to Newcastle earlier on this season..
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Scott_P

    'Labour is saying that it will confiscate private property if it does not like what people are doing with it.'

    Fire up the Cortina, we're back to Roy Hattersley price controls and Zimbabwe style land grabs.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    Never mind Ed's speech. Pixies are on Jools Holland.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    edited September 2013
    How's SeanT getting on with his 3 star hotel?
  • Carola said:

    Never mind Ed's speech. Pixies are on Jools Holland.

    Have they played Monkey Gone To Heaven yet?

  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    I'm a Norwich supporter and I'm less hopeful than in previous seasons.


    Van Wolfswinkel needs to step up.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @SadiqKhan: Lovely that @Ed_Miliband is just warm up act for Justine "I am more than a dress" Thornton- going down storm #Lab13 http://t.co/rmslQ6WPug
  • Andy_JS said:

    How's SeanT getting on with his 3 star hotel?

    I nearly made SeanT faint this afternoon
  • Grandiose said:

    I'm a Norwich supporter and I'm less hopeful than in previous seasons.


    Van Wolfswinkel needs to step up.

    I bet all you Norwich fans have all 12 fingers crossed for this season.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Charles said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    kle4 said:

    Ed M did ok. If his policy pronouncements end up being silly and unworkable that will emerge in time, but for now some of them at least are popular sounding.

    But I simply cannot believe energy companies do not overcharge us, the continual rises take the piss far too much for that.

    Quite.

    Regardless of whether little Ed's pledge stays firm or turns into an aspiration there's going to be an intense spotlight on their pricing now, and not before time.

    I also strongly doubt there will be too many politicians 'brave' or foolhardy enough to unquestioningly stick up for those energy companies and their prices.

    Cammie also promised to force energy companies into lower prices remember.
    Bit hard to then posture on their behalf after that.

    Someone on the last thread suggested removing the green charges on energy bills and funding them out of general taxation.

    So long as you could be sure the energy companies don't pinch the benefit, that would strick me as a sensible use of any extra money George can find down the back of the sofa. Direct consumer benefit (think they said £120 per consumer) - should feed through into spending - albeit expensive (£120 * 30m homes = £3.5bn). Shoots Ed's fox as well.

    The ball is in Cameron's court soon enough at conference if he wants to do anything about it or prefer to stick up for the energy companies and do nothing.

    The thing is, Cammie doesn't seem quite so keen to posture on his green credentials anymore for some strange reason. So I'm going to hazzard a guess that he won't be doing that much grandstanding on bringing in new green taxes at conference lest his base come over all kipperish again.


  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Has any Tory Minister come on TV to defend the Energy companies ?
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323

    Grandiose said:

    I'm a Norwich supporter and I'm less hopeful than in previous seasons.


    Van Wolfswinkel needs to step up.

    I bet all you Norwich fans have all 12 fingers crossed for this season.
    I'll have you know that's only *parts* of Norfolk.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805

    Carola said:

    Never mind Ed's speech. Pixies are on Jools Holland.

    Have they played Monkey Gone To Heaven yet?

    No. Hopefully they'll do an old track. That would be okay, or 'Here Comes Your Man'. But I want 'Debaser'.
  • Carola said:

    Carola said:

    Never mind Ed's speech. Pixies are on Jools Holland.

    Have they played Monkey Gone To Heaven yet?

    No. Hopefully they'll do an old track. That would be okay, or 'Here Comes Your Man'. But I want 'Debaser'.
    I'll try and work The Pixies into nighthawks next week.
  • Grandiose said:

    Grandiose said:

    I'm a Norwich supporter and I'm less hopeful than in previous seasons.


    Van Wolfswinkel needs to step up.

    I bet all you Norwich fans have all 12 fingers crossed for this season.
    I'll have you know that's only *parts* of Norfolk.
    I really should stop with my lazy stereotyping of Norwich fans.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    Mr. Herdson, although politics is thankfully not as vile as the McBride/Draper/Campbell era

    You seem very confident of that. :)

  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323

    Grandiose said:

    Grandiose said:

    I'm a Norwich supporter and I'm less hopeful than in previous seasons.


    Van Wolfswinkel needs to step up.

    I bet all you Norwich fans have all 12 fingers crossed for this season.
    I'll have you know that's only *parts* of Norfolk.
    I really should stop with my lazy stereotyping of Norwich fans.
    The Shadow Chancellor will come after you if you don't.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,968
    edited September 2013
    Grandiose said:

    Grandiose said:

    Grandiose said:

    I'm a Norwich supporter and I'm less hopeful than in previous seasons.


    Van Wolfswinkel needs to step up.

    I bet all you Norwich fans have all 12 fingers crossed for this season.
    I'll have you know that's only *parts* of Norfolk.
    I really should stop with my lazy stereotyping of Norwich fans.
    The Shadow Chancellor will come after you if you don't.
    Ed Balls features in my ultimate PB fantasy.

    I hope if and when I'm guest editor in the future, and he gets into trouble, I have the perfect headline for a thread

    "Balls deep in trouble"
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805

    Carola said:

    Carola said:

    Never mind Ed's speech. Pixies are on Jools Holland.

    Have they played Monkey Gone To Heaven yet?

    No. Hopefully they'll do an old track. That would be okay, or 'Here Comes Your Man'. But I want 'Debaser'.
    I'll try and work The Pixies into nighthawks next week.
    Goodie.

  • A Colin W has retweeted one of my tweets.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Drenge were so last week!
    Carola said:

    Never mind Ed's speech. Pixies are on Jools Holland.

  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    edited September 2013
    Ed's energy price limits and potential land grab:

    If you make any form of economic activity too risky or onerous by over taxing or regulating, people will do less of it or stop totally. Simples.

    This is a receipe for shortages of power long term as companies invest elsewhere where the regulatory and tax risks are less. As for confiscating private property because " you're not doing anything with it" I - I paraphrase - I'm speechless. Utterly speechless.

    I will seriously look at putting more of my cash abroad in case I have to follow it frankly.
  • R0bertsR0berts Posts: 391
    It was certainly a Gigantic speech by Ed today.

    It will have voters thinking: Labour, Tory, or Lib Dem - Where Is My Mind?
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    surbiton said:

    Has any Tory Minister come on TV to defend the Energy companies ?


    Grant Shapps was due on Newsnight, but he has been detained at CCHQ accepting donations to party funds from energy companies.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    The sustained standing ovation that Mr Miliband received for this part of the speech shows where the Labour heart is, and always has been.

    To play to the gallery, though, is rarely enough. Labour needs to attract people back to its fold who deserted it in 2010. It is not clear that Mr Miliband is even trying to achieve that. He talks a lot about leading a new generation of Labour politicians but he seems strangely stuck, writing a script of Labour history in which the pages of the Blair years have been ripped out. He is seeking a return to former glories, not realising that they never were particularly glorious under old Labour.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article3878255.ece
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Ed hates the shires?

    @ITVLauraK: Consumers who use heating oil or LPG, not gas or electricity wouldn't have their prices frozen under today's Labour plans
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited September 2013
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:



    We need £120bn of new power stations like now. This is partly because of the incompetence of the last government in getting replacement capacity in place. Step forward Ed. It has not been helped by dithering and time wasting on green rubbish by the Lib Dems. Step forward another Ed (is there something in the name?)

    Let's face it the power companies have us by the short and curlies in a grip which means we have to crawl to them to get what we need. Such are the glories of spending useful money on windmillsand avoiding decisions on nuclear.

    This policy is bordering on reckless.

    "The cost of building new open-cycle gas-fired plant to meet the requirement is £13bn. What inflates the figure by a factor of eight is the commitment to do it using renewable energy and nuclear."

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/23/draft_energy_bill_wtf/
    That is a really interesting link. Thanks.

    You might also like "five myths about fracking".

    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-five-myths-about-fracking-(1).aspx
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    welshowl said:

    Ed's energy price limits and potential land grab:

    If you make any form of economic activity too risky or onerous by over taxing or regulating, people will do less of it or stop totally. Simples.

    This is a receipe for shortages of power long term as companies invest elsewhere where the regulatory and tax risks are less. As for confiscating private property because " you're not doing anything with it" I - I paraphrase - I'm speechless. Utterly speechless.

    I will seriously look at putting more of my cash abroad in case I have to follow it frankly.

    When do you plan to leave ?
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    R0berts said:

    It was certainly a Gigantic speech by Ed today.

    It will have voters thinking: Labour, Tory, or Lib Dem - Where Is My Mind?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvJ8u_zsOkU

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Watch out for the exchange controls!

    Government price controls, Unions having beer and sandwiches at number 10, power shortages, inflation and currency depreciation. Cap in hand to the IMF.

    Now where did we have all these things before? It does seem familiar...

    Well, perhaps we will at least get some good music out of it!
    welshowl said:

    Ed's energy price limits and potential land grab:

    If you make any form of economic activity too risky or onerous by over taxing or regulating, people will do less of it or stop totally. Simples.

    This is a receipe for shortages of power long term as companies invest elsewhere where the regulatory and tax risks are less. As for confiscating private property because " you're not doing anything with it" I - I paraphrase - I'm speechless. Utterly speechless.

    I will seriously look at putting more of my cash abroad in case I have to follow it frankly.

  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    edited September 2013
    surbiton said:

    welshowl said:

    Ed's energy price limits and potential land grab:

    If you make any form of economic activity too risky or onerous by over taxing or regulating, people will do less of it or stop totally. Simples.

    This is a receipe for shortages of power long term as companies invest elsewhere where the regulatory and tax risks are less. As for confiscating private property because " you're not doing anything with it" I - I paraphrase - I'm speechless. Utterly speechless.

    I will seriously look at putting more of my cash abroad in case I have to follow it frankly.

    When do you plan to leave ?
    I'll take that in good heart!

    Seriously though it's barking what he's announced today. Ripe for the law of unintended consequences.

    As for the cash I'm deadly serious . I might have some to invest soon and I will absolutely balance it away from the UK now I've seen a glimpse of Ed's soul. No way will I risk it being randomly confiscated for policies superficially designed to convince people there's a free lunch.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453


    Well, perhaps we will at least get some good music out of it!

    The good music came after all that
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    There's a headline on the front of the DT, 'Schools latest duty... measuring happiness.' Hmmm.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Crikey — it was wild, it was weird, it was manic, it was a blast! This was so much more than a speech. And so much less. Almost every one of what passed for policy proposals will surely fall apart within days — Life on Mars had come to politics as 1970’s-style wage freezes and a kind of national incomes policy danced before our amazed eyes — but as political theatre this was sensational. We witnessed less of a speech and more a kind of Labour rave. This was Miliband unchained. The star of the show prowled his white triangular platform like an uncaged bear, cracked jokes, jerked tears, tugged heartstrings, hurled abuse . . . and the conference loved it. Yes sir (as he had shouted to an onlooker on Sunday), we really are bringing back socialism.

    They say conference-hall success usually precedes policy disaster. If so, Ed Miliband will soon be assailed by new criticisms. But one can now be consigned to history. He isn’t boring. Not after yesterday.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article3878278.ece
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    Watch out for the exchange controls!

    Government price controls, Unions having beer and sandwiches at number 10, power shortages, inflation and currency depreciation. Cap in hand to the IMF.

    Now where did we have all these things before? It does seem familiar...

    Well, perhaps we will at least get some good music out of it!


    welshowl said:

    Ed's energy price limits and potential land grab:

    If you make any form of economic activity too risky or onerous by over taxing or regulating, people will do less of it or stop totally. Simples.

    This is a receipe for shortages of power long term as companies invest elsewhere where the regulatory and tax risks are less. As for confiscating private property because " you're not doing anything with it" I - I paraphrase - I'm speechless. Utterly speechless.

    I will seriously look at putting more of my cash abroad in case I have to follow it frankly.

    Yes but Morris Marinas were crap
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Not true, 77 was a vintage year:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohRbJJohv6Y
    Scott_P said:


    Well, perhaps we will at least get some good music out of it!

    The good music came after all that
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Poor ScottP working so hard.

    Scott they left you. Just move on and try to rebuild with positivity. Don't let the past dictate your actions. Build a new life for yourself.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @TelePolitics: Miliband's 'Stalinist' plan to seize land for homes and build on fields http://t.co/OFXmL5kUHL
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @paulwaugh: On Newsnight, @JohnRentoul says today proves EdM just 'doesn't understand markets' or profit-motive or business + voters will see through it

  • Likewise the legality question. The EU Commission might have given it an amber light but they're not the final arbiter and the ECJ could well come up with a different finding. Indeed, until the details are published, it'd be impossible for anyone to give a definitive answer. I don't really see how it's any different in principle from the minimum pricing policy for alcohol which was ruled out of bounds. If someone wants to pay more than the maximum (to secure supply for example), why shouldn't they be able to do so?

    If the Commission says it's OK then it's hard to imagine anyone getting a case through the ECJ in less than the two years they're planning for the policy to last.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Scott_P said:

    @TelePolitics: Miliband's 'Stalinist' plan to seize land for homes and build on fields http://t.co/OFXmL5kUHL

    and people were worried when they thought a little cho cho train was coming by,just wait until they find the village they live in as turned into city ;-)

  • Mondeo Man and Worcester Woman, I understood. But all this talk about conservatory owners being the new target voters leaves me very suspicious. It's the second time I've heard it. The word sounds just too much like Conservative and Tory. I wouldn't be surprised if it's an attempt at subliminal suggestion. Anyone know where it came from?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    edited September 2013
    I wonder what Mandy and Blair think seeing what their New Labour project has been reduced to under Ed The Red!

    Thing is, I'm not all that certain Britain won't try a very left-wing government... How many people are alive who remember the 1970's clearly? And for those that do surely 40-35 years is enough to allow the memory to fade.

    Everything in life is cyclical and fashions come and go. I could well imagine that Britain might elect an extreme socialist government in 2015...

    For that reason, I'm going to start stocking up on candle's now.

    And and the Tories had better start thinking about who will be the "New Thatcher" to rescue us from the socialist nightmare when the sh*t hit's the fan.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited September 2013


    Likewise the legality question. The EU Commission might have given it an amber light but they're not the final arbiter and the ECJ could well come up with a different finding. Indeed, until the details are published, it'd be impossible for anyone to give a definitive answer. I don't really see how it's any different in principle from the minimum pricing policy for alcohol which was ruled out of bounds. If someone wants to pay more than the maximum (to secure supply for example), why shouldn't they be able to do so?

    If the Commission says it's OK then it's hard to imagine anyone getting a case through the ECJ in less than the two years they're planning for the policy to last.
    Artful

    You need to consider this background statement to the referral of Poland by the EU Commission to the ECJ:

    Internal energy market legislation (Directive 2009/73/EC) offers consumers the freedom to choose their supplier. The European objective, as confirmed by the Heads of State and Governments at the European Council in May 2013, is to establish a genuine European internal energy market by 2014. This will enhance security of supply and guarantee consumers more choice and the best possible service. The existence of a competitive EU internal energy market is the best way of ensuring security of supply and competitive energy prices. Regulated prices distort the markets as they do not reflect actual demand and limit effective competition. Furthermore, they can prevent new arrivals from entering the market. Therefore, and as confirmed by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, regulated prices may be adopted only when they serve the general economic interest and are proportionate, clearly defined, transparent, non-discriminatory and verifiable. The Court of Justice has confirmed this principle in its Federutility and ENEL judgments of 2010 and 2011. [My bolding]

    Further details on http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-580_en.htm

    I am not claiming that Labour's proposals are in conflict with EU legislation but it is clear from the above there will be plenty of scope for legal argument.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    edited September 2013
    A family member has asked me to help book a hotel room in the vicinity of Heathrow Airport for 9th October for less than £100. I'm actually struggling to find anywhere at the moment apart from the Travelodge which gets horrendous reviews on TripAdvisor.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Andy_JS said:

    A family member has asked me to help book a hotel room in the vicinity of Heathrow Airport for 9th October for less than £100. I'm actually struggling to find anywhere at the moment apart from the Travelodge which gets horrendous reviews on TripAdvisor.

    How picky are they? I would take online reviews with a big pinch of salt -- if you had a bad experience you are much more likely to want to rant about it.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,968
    edited September 2013
    Andy_JS said:

    A family member has asked me to help book a hotel room in the vicinity of Heathrow Airport for 9th October for less than £100. I'm actually struggling to find anywhere at the moment apart from the Travelodge which gets horrendous reviews on TripAdvisor.

    Go to laterooms.com

    You can get some decent hotels on deals for less than £100, some prepay, some not
  • RedRag1RedRag1 Posts: 527
    So how many ministers have been on the media outlets defending the energy companies.....has there been any?
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited September 2013
    Some observations (for what they're worth) after reflecting on Ed's speech:

    1) The strategy is correct. Labour have lost the argument on the economy, on the cuts, and on growth. Whatever the rights and wrongs, the Osborne narrative has prevailed (many left-leaning journalists have been ruefully making this point in recent weeks).

    2) Therefore, in contrast to their approach up till now, Labour are no longer trying to make an argument they can't win, which just ties them up in knots. Instead, they're trying to shift the battle away from the Tories' favoured battleground - the deficit - onto different ground where they think they at least have some credibility, and might have a distinct advantage. The cost of living is the main ground they've chosen, which helpfully ties into what the focus groups tell them about Cameron and Osborne being 'out of touch' (let's not enquire too closely into quite how the Labour front-bench is more in touch - perception is all).

    3) Will it work? For a day or two, yes. Even if the specific proposals get shot down (which they will), Labour would far rather be arguing about energy costs than the deficit.

    4) As to whether it will work longer term, that depends on the response from the Tories, and to an extent the LibDems (who are at grave risk here of being squeezed out as irrelevant). The new approach leaves Labour dangerously exposed on the deficit flank; I won't be the only one to have noticed this.

    5) Ed Miliband has a new and much better speech writer. I don't know who he or she is, but this text had real verbs and a welcome absence of abstract wonk-speak. Compared with, say, last year's speech, it was much, much better - it cannot have been written by the same person or team. What this probably means is that it's much less Ed's own work, but that's a guess. (We'll gloss over and forgive over the cheesy bits - this was a conference speech after all).

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @rosschawkins: Fighting talk but sure it's not what Lab have in mind: MT @AJohnColes 3 yrs I lived with Tilley lamps & candles no problem.
  • AveryLP said:


    I am not claiming that Labour's proposals are in conflict with EU legislation but it is clear from the above there will be plenty of scope for legal argument.

    That's what I mean, good luck getting those arguments finished before the policy has.

    PS This "artful" shit is getting old.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    edited September 2013
    RedRag1 said:

    So how many ministers have been on the media outlets defending the energy companies.....has there been any?

    I don't think it's for Ministers to "defend" energy companies, but presumably we'll hear the Conservative response to this when they get their conference go next week?

    Generally other parties don't intervene when another party is holding their conference - The exception being El Gord who flew to Iraq during the 2007 Conservative conference - But that was the beginning of the end for him and the "bottled" election happened just a few days later - And Gord was completely and totally bonkers.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Andy_JS said:

    A family member has asked me to help book a hotel room in the vicinity of Heathrow Airport for 9th October for less than £100. I'm actually struggling to find anywhere at the moment apart from the Travelodge which gets horrendous reviews on TripAdvisor.

    You might consider a B&B or Hotel deal in the Paddington area and Heathrow Express to LHR. Especially if you friend is already travelling through London by train.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453



    That's what I mean, good luck getting those arguments finished before the policy has.

    That works in the energy company's favour.

    They send you a bill, and you can go to court for not paying it.

    The government says the bill exceeds their cap. Energy company says the cap is not legal. Pay the bills, or go to court, or we turn the lights out...
  • AveryLP said:


    I am not claiming that Labour's proposals are in conflict with EU legislation but it is clear from the above there will be plenty of scope for legal argument.

    That's what I mean, good luck getting those arguments finished before the policy has.

    PS This "artful" shit is getting old.
    You're assuming the challenger would fail to get an injunction pending the outcome of the case.
  • saddosaddo Posts: 534
    If Cameron loses the next election with 2 years time take apart red's Marxist/Stalinist agenda, him and the Tories deserve to be shot.
    Red should be completely unelectable now
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    Some observations (for what they're worth) after reflecting on Ed's speech:

    1) The strategy is correct. Labour have lost the argument on the economy, on the cuts, and on growth. Whatever the rights and wrongs, the Osborne narrative has prevailed (many left-leaning journalists have been ruefully making this point in recent weeks).

    2) Therefore, in contrast to their approach up till now, Labour are no longer trying to make an argument they can't win, which just ties them up in knots. Instead, they're trying to shift the battle away from the Tories' favoured battleground - the deficit - onto different ground where they think they at least have some credibility, and might have a distinct advantage. The cost of living is the main ground they've chosen, which helpfully ties into what the focus groups tell them about Cameron and Osborne being 'out of touch' (let's not enquire too closely into quite how the Labour front-bench is more in touch - perception is all).

    3) Will it work? For a day or two, yes. Even if the specific proposals get shot down (which they will), Labour would far rather be arguing about energy costs than the deficit.

    4) As to whether it will work longer term, that depends on the response from the Tories, and to an extent the LibDems (who are at grave risk here of being squeezed out as irrelevant). The new approach leaves Labour dangerously exposed on the deficit flank; I won't be the only one to have noticed this.

    5) Ed Miliband has a new and much better speech writer. I don't know who he or she is, but this text had real verbs and a welcome absence of abstract wonk-speak. Compared with, say, last year's speech, it was much, much better - it cannot have been written by the same person or team. What this probably means is that it's much less Ed's own work, but that's a guess. (We'll gloss over and forgive over the cheesy bits - this was a conference speech after all).

    5. Patrick Hennessey? It had the fluid articulacy of an educated author.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Lucky this is a non-story, eh?
    Ed Miliband’s proposal to confiscate land from developers refusing to build on it was criticised as a “land grab” last night. The Labour leader vowed to issue compulsory purchase orders to developers who had planning permission to build on their land, but refused to do so. They could also be fined.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/conference/article3878363.ece
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited September 2013
    surbiton said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    Let the PB Hodges hysteria begin! (yet again) ;)

    I can't wait to read Nabavi, Plato and Fitalass et al stand up for the social benefit which the energy companies bring to us !
    Dunno about social benefit, but personally I look to energy companies to keep the lights on and the gas flowing. That's kinda what they're for, isn't it? And it costs lots of up-front dosh (lots and lots and lots of dosh), on which they'd quite like to get at least as good a return as they can get elsewhere in the world.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    AveryLP said:


    I am not claiming that Labour's proposals are in conflict with EU legislation but it is clear from the above there will be plenty of scope for legal argument.

    That's what I mean, good luck getting those arguments finished before the policy has.

    PS This "artful" shit is getting old.
    The energy industry has plenty of time and resource to lobby between now and 2015. I suspect their public affairs departments will be on to it tomorrow morning.
This discussion has been closed.