Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Miliband’s energy price freeze might or might not be good e
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Miliband’s energy price freeze might or might not be good economics – but it’s certainly good politics
Our first session of PMQs since the start of September and as the above Tweets from Nick Robinson and Andrew Sparrow show it was Miliband’s energy price freeze which was setting the agenda – something that happens very rarely for an opposition leader.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
If we do get blackouts this winter, what will this do to the energy debate?
(First?)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100240679/exclusive-labour-1997-2010-was-the-worst-government-ever-and-this-is-why/
While he is at it they could read Thatcher: My Part in Her Rise to Power by Jack Grunwick Dromey. There must be some good quotes about the police in JD's Grunwick The Workers' Story.
Cameron needs to remind Miliband about the greenwash used to justify price rises.
http://www.labour.org.uk/commitment_to_cut_emissions
The trouble with Cameron is that he didn't knife Brown often enough.
True but the public won;t care as long as their prices are either frozen or cut. They may thank Ed Miliband for highlighting this issue, but that doesn't mean they'll actually vote for him.
"Miliband raised your energy bills, we have cut them". Simple, clear, undeniable, and it's never going to happen. Davey's not quite as stark raving mad as Miliband but he and both leaderships in the Coalition are greenist.
http://www.francisclark.co.uk/news-views/blog/labour-has-a-new-energy-policy-has-it-let-politics-disr/
There is no corresponding payoff from Miliband's energy price freeze policy. Unless there is a major power cut that can be blamed on either party, I don't see energy policy shifting many votes at the general election.
Policies are attributed mainly on what we expect parties to do - not what they often do as we work on *brand* values in the absence of actual info.
Mr Morris: True I guess.
Another opening for UKIP?
And tim is still livid about his success, 6 years later.
Bah. It's this kind of cosy political consensus I loathe. How can a choice matter if the major players all agree on a matter where the public are significantly divided?
If we get blackouts this winter it will illustrate we have a system based on dogma and not on provision.
I wonder how many voters actually realize that perfectly good power stations are being phased out simply because of the still disputed science of global warming, with only a sketchy idea of where the replacement generation capacity is going to come from.
All three parties are guilty of buying into this maoist absurdity, but there it is.
Ed wants greenery and he also wants lower energy prices. In other words he wants the energy companies to pay.
What happens when they won't or can't?
The lights go out. I almost want him to win the next election just to watch him try to square the utterly cynical and impossible circle he has drawn himself.
Former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell is to stand down from Parliament at the election scheduled for May 2015
- The new comments system (Vanilla) was introduced on 22nd March 2013
- That's exactly 200 days ago
- If we assume even the most avid poster needs 8 hours a day to sleep and attend to calls of nature*, that means 200x16 = 3200 hours are available
- This means that a poster with, say, 10,800 posts has posted once every 18 minutes though the spring, the loveliest summer in a decade, and into autumn
Mind boggling, huh?
* washing is optional
On topic: there's no need to abandon greenery for the sake of shafting Miliband. Osborne could take the green levies off energy bills and replace the subsidies from elsewhere, by whatever fiscal legerdemain seems appropriate at the time.
http://order-order.com/2013/10/09/ed-admitted-cost-of-living-would-be-increased-by-his-policieswilling-to-lose-six-months-of-economic-growth/
Ed M mars his case. There will be price rises.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_yi9WotkyY
Really? Given that the leader of the opposition gets to ask the questions, it would be remarkable indeed if he didn't get to choose the agenda.
- If we assume, on average, 5 minutes a post (including digging around in twitter, the ONS, blogs, news sites, etc, etc), this means that an astounding 28% of this posters waking life is spent on this activity
I'd hope - genuinely - that this sobering statistic would give rise to some thought and reflection. It's not the sort of thing I'd look back on, on my death bed, and feel a sense of satisfaction about.
It was arguably the bloodiest day or so in Europe until World War One. (Discounting naval battles. In the Battle of Ecnomus, in the First Punic War, more than a quarter of a million men reputedly fought).
Could make a case of the Battle of Arausio having more casualties, but that's less well-known/documented.
I forget the precise terms of the Cannae casualties, but I think I calculated it was the equivalent (if we had warrior-politicians as the Romans did) of over 200 MPs and the PM or DPM ending up dead. Practically everyone was family or knew of someone who died.
Varro changing the usual Roman order of battle (he closed up the gaps between the maniples meaning that there was less flexibility and room to manoeuvre) is echoed by Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia (who enjoyed a similar numerical advantages and broke up the phalanx with elephants).
Ahem, apologies for the waffling.
You never have quite recovered from the country avoiding a triple dip recession have you?
Today's #PMQs is now available to watch on the UK Parliament YouTube Channel youtu.be/3_csoZvglyE @Number10gov
Wow! Seriously, gaspworthily amazing. Thanks. Have to go and get the kids and do chores now, but I'll follow all that up later with a bit of help from google (who is my friend). Many thanks! Waffling much appreciated.
Just don't listen to Mr. Eagles.
Mr. T, 'twas a fine article. How're your links/tweets looking?
Clearly, Osborne will now be damned if he does ("copying Labour" / "Miliband setting the agenda" etc), and damned if he doesn't ("not listening", "nothing to say" etc), which is one reason the Tories are having such difficulty coming up with a response. (As a rule, when there's no easy policial answer to a problem, the best thing to do is the right thing - you'll lose short-term whatever so you may as well win in the longer timeframe).
Tim is right that it started with Syria. That piece of cynical positioning, again putting short-term party interest first, showed the new, ruthless Ed. That Miliband expected and wanted to lose the vote is beside the point - winning it meant he was in part responsible for what came next, which was precisely what he didn't want to be.
I fear we're in for something of a re-run of the 1970s: the challenges may be different but the willingness of politicians to address them or of the electorate to accept that they need fixing is lacking, so consequently they'll not only not be fixed but will worsen. Miliband still believes in the magic money tree as much as Callaghan believed in tripartism, and beer and sandwiches at No 10; the electorate have come to view a standard of living well beyond that which is being earned as their right. It cannot continue.
IIUC the theory is that the energy companies are making bigger profits than they need to to provide the service because the market isn't competitive enough, so you can fix the prices and they'll still have attractive enough profits to make them sell people energy. Then once you've reformed the market to be properly competitive (which optimistically takes two years) profits and prices will drop naturally so you won't need to fix them any more.
I don't think the premise is true, but if it was the logic of the rest would work.
The competitiveness of an industry is not a matter which politicians should decide as a matter of political policy.
The proper course of action is to refer the industry to a competent Competition Commission (EU or UK) and to base any reforms on its recommendations.
This is why Cameron should pre-empt Miliband by referring the household energy supply industry now, so that its recommendations would become available at the beginning of the next parliamentary term.
'It is an impressive commitment to the cause. To what effect, though, I wonder... I can't resist the comparison between Mr post-every-18-minutes and SeanT with his soapbox at the Daily Telegraph, of which he makes very good use. Nice rant on there today, SeanT!
SeanT gets paid whilst wee Timmy is a freebie,can't think why.
Glad it's going well.
http://toys.usvsth3m.com/owen-patersons-badger-penalty-shootout/
AveryLP said,
" The competitiveness of an industry is not a matter which politicians should decide as a matter of political policy.
The proper course of action is to refer the industry to a competent Competition Commission (EU or UK) and to base any reforms on its recommendations.
This is why Cameron should pre-empt Miliband by referrring the household energy supply industry now, so that its recommendations would become available at the beginning of the next parliamentary term."
EIT's assumption is fine for a UK energy industry that is self-sufficient and is insulated from energy market forces, but as we know the UK energy industry relies heavily on imports for energy sources and so is not insulated from world market movements.
*BOOOOOM*
Maybe he's right, but I think a potential PM ought to make plans for the worst case anyway.
We're not long shot of one useless PM who thought he could abolish the economic cycle, we don't need another one who thinks his wishes become reality.
He is weak on credibility - once this is wheeze is shredded what is he left with ?
He's going to explain his role in pushing them to the current high levels?
He was subsequently pilloried in a whole series of comments by tim who pointed out that the ONS figures were already seasonally adjusted.
But, tim, not all seasonal influences are included in routine seasonal adjustments. For example, output figures are not adjusted for above or below trend seasonal changes in temperature and their effect on demand for, say, household energy.
So philiph, in particular, and PB Tories, in general, will be heartened to learn that the ONS specifically endorsed philip's interpretation of the figures in the body of the commentary:
The warmer than average temperature in August and reduced demand for space-heating resulted in electricity and gas demand falling and hence contributed to the decline.
tim should note it is not customary for householders to leave their heating systems on when taking a mid summer holiday. This too will impact energy supplies but not be covered by seasonal adjustments made by the ONS.
Oh I see, he's going to explain why under labour the lights will be going out because the energy companies can't or won't produce energy at a loss, and won't be investing in projects where prices are capped.
UK median earnings = £21,300
Bearing in mind that the latter is for taxpayers only, thus not considering those parts of the population who are not earning enough to pay income tax (because they are children, etc), then there is considerable scope for the standard of living of many British nationals to improve, even if the country as a whole does not become wealthier.
It rather suggests that most of the electorate are enjoying a standard of living below that which they have earned through their labour.
Just read the Telegraph piece. Lol!
You've become a terrible fence-sitter
He's turning into a total joke - not a serious politician - an agitator for a series of niche issues.
Can you imagine Tony Blair going on Watchdog to advocate nationalised electricity prices ?
A small time charlie.
They may be good at generating power but they need to work on their communication strategy.
Miliband's record on hiking up energy prices is what will destroy this gimmick of a policy.
He cannot implement it immediately on taking office (perish the thought) as it will take a huge amount of parliamentary time to push through and then it will immediately be subject to a number of legal challenges.
He is the one who is on record as being willing to see the economy shrink as a direct result of his climate change levies.
This might be a short-term political win for him (though the polls do not appear to have shifted in his favour) but it will unravel. Indeed it has unravelled - but only parts of the media are prepared to report it.
Going on Watchdog will do nothing to increase his credibility. It will only show people again how unsuited to the role of leading the country. The more people see of Ed, the less they get him.
Precisely.
The lights go out as power companies mothball loss making plant, and Ed rushes in to take it over on the consumers behalf.
Can Ed?
The Tories need to ram two things down the public's throats:
1) Ed was partly responsible for the price rises we are seeing whilst at DECC, and also for the generation capacity crisis. He didn't care about price rises then.
2) We have amongst the lowest gas and electricity prices in Europe. We're also in line with other European countries in the amount of disposable income spent on energy. Hardly signs of a sick market.
A good, balanced interview on this topic can be found below. There are problems with the energy companies, but our bills are comparatively cheaper:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24302440
EiT: I've skimmed that link. I don't agree with some of what it says, but I need to do some background research to check my facts. But they're way off-mark when commenting that it doesn't matter if investment reduces now, as any new construction won't occur before the crunch. That's rapidly becoming the case (although not fully true), but ignores the obvious: if there's a crunch, then the capacity would nearly be ready. We need the energy companies to be investing now.
In the absence of such an attack, Labour are well-placed.
We might bemoan this, but it is an existing reality, after more than three years of the Coalition government.
Neither did the tories. They voted for these measures too, as tim has pointed out. The green fungus is all over the hands of all mainstream politicians.
Everybody put political dogma before expediency and now we are seeing the results.
"THE SNP Government spent almost £20,000 in a court battle to hide legal advice on Scotland’s EU membership after independence - advice which turned out to be non-existent."
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-snp-s-20k-eu-court-battle-1-3133692
public, and that's enough for him.
Of course people are also annoyed about house prices (apart from their own when
it's rising), petrol, taxes, insurance, food, travel, etc. Which will Ed freeze next?
Wonder how many more of the sitting Scottish MPs I have indicated to some PBers are likely to retire will do so.
2012 council results for the wards making up the parliamentary seat were roughly
LD 8,300 SNP 6,200 Con 4,200 Lab 3,500 plus an Independent in Cupar who took 1,556 votes . His 2nd preferences split roughly 2:1:1:1 in favour of the LD's
http://www.costoflabour.com
The more recent controversial awards may well have contributed to the public’s view of the prize. Obama (2009), Al Gore (2007) and the EU (2012) were judged amongst the least deserving, polling 4%, 4% and 3% respectively.
MP Chloe Smith: "I couldn’t help but laugh when Newsnight rang offering me a ‘sensible’ interview with Jeremy Paxman about my next move"
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/clever-chaps-in-the-house-8868934.html
RT @BBCWatchdog: Also joining Anne tonight - Leader of the Labour Party @Ed_Miliband to discuss his energy price freeze <<No bias here obvs.
So that's a PPB on Watchdog.
"The badgers moved the goalposts. We're dealing with a wild animal, subject to the vagaries of the weather and disease and breeding patterns," he said.
Great policy, by the way, hammering middle income Londoners with 70% marginal rates then threatening them with fines for failing to understand Ozzy's crackpot shambles of a policy. I see it has the PB Tory seal of approval.
Between that and chuntering on about Latvian homophobes it's a wonder any work gets done!
As ever your obsessions truly are the nation's obsessions!
Glancing down the list the biggest party disagreement seems to be on Gorbachev. Picked by 17% of Conservatives vs 7% of Lib Dems (11% Labour).
If you can afford to dine out in swanky restaurants like Boisdale, you're much better off than 95%+ of the population.
You could move to 'Bumpkinland' or whatever you called the world outside the capital, millions of people do and survive commuting. It's your lifestyle choice to live in London.