I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
I've read around the policies thanks.
So you don't see the hypocrisy in both parties announcing measures to control the price of energy; one being branded an unnecessary intervention in the free market, the other as some sort of championing of the common people protecting consumers from exploitation? If there's a difference it's that a price freeze might actually have helped those struggling with their bills for a couple of years.
Let's not forget Miliband was labelled a "marxist" and a "conman" by Cameron over this policy.
I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
As it turns out (not that the Labours were to know at the time) it would have done the exact reverse of protecting consumers! Unintended consequences and all that. The Labours were all geared up to freeze energy prices for 20 months. In the next 20 months there was a massive fall in wholesale energy prices that were, at least partially, passed on to consumers. Ed's plan would have done nothing but increase the power companies' profitability and consumers would have been paying much more than they needed to. I haven't looked at the latest proposal but frankly it's likely to be less than a rip-roaring success. I've probably lost more this morning with SSE's share price dropping than the Conservatives are going to be saving me on my fuel bills. And who is going to be lining up to fund the construction of the new power stations we so desperately need?
I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
As it turns out (not that the Labours were to know at the time) it would have done the exact reverse of protecting consumers! Unintended consequences and all that. The Labours were all geared up to freeze energy prices for 20 months. In the next 20 months there was a massive fall in wholesale energy prices that were, at least partially, passed on to consumers. Ed's plan would have done nothing but increase the power companies' profitability and consumers would have been paying much more than they needed to. I haven't looked at the latest proposal but frankly it's likely to be less than a rip-roaring success. I've probably lost more this morning with SSE's share price dropping than the Conservatives are going to be saving me on my fuel bills. And who is going to be lining up to fund the construction of the new power stations we so desperately need?
I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
As it turns out (not that the Labours were to know at the time) it would have done the exact reverse of protecting consumers! Unintended consequences and all that. The Labours were all geared up to freeze energy prices for 20 months. In the next 20 months there was a massive fall in wholesale energy prices that were, at least partially, passed on to consumers. Ed's plan would have done nothing but increase the power companies' profitability and consumers would have been paying much more than they needed to. I haven't looked at the latest proposal but frankly it's likely to be less than a rip-roaring success. I've probably lost more this morning with SSE's share price dropping than the Conservatives are going to be saving me on my fuel bills. And who is going to be lining up to fund the construction of the new power stations we so desperately need?
If my recollection is correct the whole point of the price freeze (and I'm not sure if prices could have been dropped under the proposal however unlikely tbh) was to enable the introduction of a new regulatory regime for the energy market. A market that many of us view as seriously in need of reform.
So it was possible that longer term we would still have benefited even if prices had remained temporarily higher.
I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
As it turns out (not that the Labours were to know at the time) it would have done the exact reverse of protecting consumers! Unintended consequences and all that. The Labours were all geared up to freeze energy prices for 20 months. In the next 20 months there was a massive fall in wholesale energy prices that were, at least partially, passed on to consumers. Ed's plan would have done nothing but increase the power companies' profitability and consumers would have been paying much more than they needed to. I haven't looked at the latest proposal but frankly it's likely to be less than a rip-roaring success. I've probably lost more this morning with SSE's share price dropping than the Conservatives are going to be saving me on my fuel bills. And who is going to be lining up to fund the construction of the new power stations we so desperately need?
I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
As it turns out (not that the Labours were to know at the time) it would have done the exact reverse of protecting consumers! Unintended consequences and all that. The Labours were all geared up to freeze energy prices for 20 months. In the next 20 months there was a massive fall in wholesale energy prices that were, at least partially, passed on to consumers. Ed's plan would have done nothing but increase the power companies' profitability and consumers would have been paying much more than they needed to. I haven't looked at the latest proposal but frankly it's likely to be less than a rip-roaring success. I've probably lost more this morning with SSE's share price dropping than the Conservatives are going to be saving me on my fuel bills. And who is going to be lining up to fund the construction of the new power stations we so desperately need?
If my recollection is correct the whole point of the price freeze (and I'm not sure if prices could have been dropped under the proposal however unlikely tbh) was to enable the introduction of a new regulatory regime for the energy market. A market that many of us view as seriously in need of reform.
So it was possible that longer term we would still have benefited even if prices had remained temporarily higher.
What I'd like to see is an end to those daily standing charges on (all?) utilities which you pay whether you've used any product or not. The companies argue that it's a reasonable contribution to the provision of the infrastructure but how do you think Tesco would get on if it added a £1 charge at the end of your till roll for the cost of the store? I'm sure it would work well in Wetherspoons too!
And another thing - why do rail fares go up every year to fund, we are told, the future improvement to the network? Would you pay 5 star hotel rates in a B&B because they told you they wanted a contribution to their upgrade costs. I think not.
I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
As it turns out (not that the Labours were to know at the time) it would have done the exact reverse of protecting consumers! Unintended consequences and all that. The Labours were all geared up to freeze energy prices for 20 months. In the next 20 months there was a massive fall in wholesale energy prices that were, at least partially, passed on to consumers. Ed's plan would have done nothing but increase the power companies' profitability and consumers would have been paying much more than they needed to. I haven't looked at the latest proposal but frankly it's likely to be less than a rip-roaring success. I've probably lost more this morning with SSE's share price dropping than the Conservatives are going to be saving me on my fuel bills. And who is going to be lining up to fund the construction of the new power stations we so desperately need?
I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
As it turns out (not that the Labours were to know at the time) it would have done the exact reverse of protecting consumers! Unintended consequences and all that. The Labours were all geared up to freeze energy prices for 20 months. In the next 20 months there was a massive fall in wholesale energy prices that were, at least partially, passed on to consumers. Ed's plan would have done nothing but increase the power companies' profitability and consumers would have been paying much more than they needed to. I haven't looked at the latest proposal but frankly it's likely to be less than a rip-roaring success. I've probably lost more this morning with SSE's share price dropping than the Conservatives are going to be saving me on my fuel bills. And who is going to be lining up to fund the construction of the new power stations we so desperately need?
If my recollection is correct the whole point of the price freeze (and I'm not sure if prices could have been dropped under the proposal however unlikely tbh) was to enable the introduction of a new regulatory regime for the energy market. A market that many of us view as seriously in need of reform.
So it was possible that longer term we would still have benefited even if prices had remained temporarily higher.
What I'd like to see is an end to those daily standing charges on (all?) utilities which you pay whether you've used any product or not. The companies argue that it's a reasonable contribution to the provision of the infrastructure but how do you think Tesco would get on if it added a £1 charge at the end of your till roll for the cost of the store? I'm sure it would work well in Wetherspoons too!
And another thing - why do rail fares go up every year to fund, we are told, the future improvement to the network? Would you pay 5 star hotel rates in a B&B because they told you they wanted a contribution to their upgrade costs. I think not.
I think a fairer pricing policy would be a fixed charge to cover infrastructure and service and we pay market price for the energy. That gives proper competition as a meaningful comparison can be made between suppliers on cost and service. The gas and electricity doesn't change in quality so why price it differently.
I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
I've read around the policies thanks.
So you don't see the hypocrisy in both parties announcing measures to control the price of energy; one being branded an unnecessary intervention in the free market, the other as some sort of championing of the common people protecting consumers from exploitation? If there's a difference it's that a price freeze might actually have helped those struggling with their bills for a couple of years.
Let's not forget Miliband was labelled a "marxist" and a "conman" by Cameron over this policy.
No need to be salty. To be clear, I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't read around the policies. Regardless of positioning on the political spectrum I find most posters on here to have solid, well founded arguments and I enjoy reading them.
My point was to highlight to Muttley that I find social media snippets like that and on facebook (I think Fiiish quoted another one the other day) to be more dangerous than a right wing regulated press.
How many of those 3,500+ people who re-tweeted bothered to check out the policy differences but because it suited their political bias decided it was worth sharing and who is accountable for any wrong information being shared? Again to be clear, this isn't a dig at the tweet you shared but more a view of social media in general.
My view on energy prices and future policies is that a government shouldn't interfere with the free market, but OFGEM need to be given more teeth to enforce much tougher criteria for energy companies to increase tariffs. I also think financial penalties OFGEM has raised (£40m) should be put in to reserves and provided to the most vulnerable in society to alleviate the pinch of any future rise in cost. Although I appreciate that defining an eligibility criteria would be extremely difficult so understand why a headline freeze or cap would be favourable to a government.
I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
I've read around the policies thanks.
So you don't see the hypocrisy in both parties announcing measures to control the price of energy; one being branded an unnecessary intervention in the free market, the other as some sort of championing of the common people protecting consumers from exploitation? If there's a difference it's that a price freeze might actually have helped those struggling with their bills for a couple of years.
Let's not forget Miliband was labelled a "marxist" and a "conman" by Cameron over this policy.
No need to be salty. To be clear, I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't read around the policies. Regardless of positioning on the political spectrum I find most posters on here to have solid, well founded arguments and I enjoy reading them.
My point was to highlight to Muttley that I find social media snippets like that and on facebook (I think Fiiish quoted another one the other day) to be more dangerous than a right wing regulated press.
How many of those 3,500+ people who re-tweeted bothered to check out the policy differences but because it suited their political bias decided it was worth sharing and who is accountable for any wrong information being shared? Again to be clear, this isn't a dig at the tweet you shared but more a view of social media in general.
My view on energy prices and future policies is that a government shouldn't interfere with the free market, but OFGEM need to be given more teeth to enforce much tougher criteria for energy companies to increase tariffs. I also think financial penalties OFGEM has raised (£40m) should be put in to reserves and provided to the most vulnerable in society to alleviate the pinch of any future rise in cost. Although I appreciate that defining an eligibility criteria would be extremely difficult so understand why a headline freeze or cap would be favourable to a government.
I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
I've read around the policies thanks.
So you don't see the hypocrisy in both parties announcing measures to control the price of energy; one being branded an unnecessary intervention in the free market, the other as some sort of championing of the common people protecting consumers from exploitation? If there's a difference it's that a price freeze might actually have helped those struggling with their bills for a couple of years.
Let's not forget Miliband was labelled a "marxist" and a "conman" by Cameron over this policy.
No need to be salty. To be clear, I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't read around the policies. Regardless of positioning on the political spectrum I find most posters on here to have solid, well founded arguments and I enjoy reading them.
My point was to highlight to Muttley that I find social media snippets like that and on facebook (I think Fiiish quoted another one the other day) to be more dangerous than a right wing regulated press.
How many of those 3,500+ people who re-tweeted bothered to check out the policy differences but because it suited their political bias decided it was worth sharing and who is accountable for any wrong information being shared? Again to be clear, this isn't a dig at the tweet you shared but more a view of social media in general.
My view on energy prices and future policies is that a government shouldn't interfere with the free market, but OFGEM need to be given more teeth to enforce much tougher criteria for energy companies to increase tariffs. I also think financial penalties OFGEM has raised (£40m) should be put in to reserves and provided to the most vulnerable in society to alleviate the pinch of any future rise in cost. Although I appreciate that defining an eligibility criteria would be extremely difficult so understand why a headline freeze or cap would be favourable to a government.
No saltiness intended but to clarify I searched out the contrasting front pages to highlight my point after considering the (re)announcement of this policy not the other way around. I'm not even on Twitter.
I maintain that the way the two similar policies are being treated differently is pretty indicative of the way perception is manipulated by our media.
Nicking and rebranding/rethinking an opponents previous election campaign promise is pretty standard procedure in a first past the post system. It's how the system still works.
Nicking and rebranding/rethinking an opponents previous election campaign promise is pretty standard procedure in a first past the post system. It's how the system still works.
My point is not that though. It's that a policy that was once laughably branded as striving for a "marxist utopia" by the Tories is now being presented as striking a blow for the ordinary consumer. There's a chasm between the way some sections of the media treat similar policies illustrating what any party in opposition to the Tories is up against.
So it wasn't a freeze despite their manifesto stating the words:
'Labour will freeze energy bills'
as they go on to say
'ensuring that bills can fall but not rise'
So their plan was also a cap?
Have to say reading that extremely brief description it sounds pretty good, but labour will always look to bail out benefit families so I don't believe they would 'deliver a better deal to working families'.
F'd under Labour F'd under Conservatives Double F'd under Lib Dems
So it wasn't a freeze despite their manifesto stating the words:
'Labour will freeze energy bills'
as they go on to say
'ensuring that bills can fall but not rise'
So their plan was also a cap?
Have to say reading that extremely brief description it sounds pretty good, but labour will always look to bail out benefit families so I don't believe they would 'deliver a better deal to working families'.
F'd under Labour F'd under Conservatives Double F'd under Lib Dems
So we're F'd any which way about it!
What's a "benefit family" and why wouldn't "working families" also have gained through a temporary limit on energy price rises and a review of the regulatory system?
The boss at Centrica is moaning that such things should be left to the "free market"! The free market you tosser is where you have competition to drive bills down, not a cosy price-fixing regime where the customer has no idea who is offering the lowest tarrifs. Households been overcharged billions while this Tory regime has been in power, 7 years and counting, in the face of criticism from Ofgen and CMA who have been ignored.
The power companies, as well as various other markets like phone/tv/broadband, insurance and a few others operate a confusopoly, a phrase first coined by Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) as far as I'm aware.
It's basically where the players in a particular market both colude and make their product offerings so confusing as to make it impossible for the average customer to make a fair comparison of the products being offered, thus confusing them as to which product they should select and therefore extracting larger profits from a customer base overpaying for unnecessary or unwanted services.
I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
As it turns out (not that the Labours were to know at the time) it would have done the exact reverse of protecting consumers! Unintended consequences and all that. The Labours were all geared up to freeze energy prices for 20 months. In the next 20 months there was a massive fall in wholesale energy prices that were, at least partially, passed on to consumers. Ed's plan would have done nothing but increase the power companies' profitability and consumers would have been paying much more than they needed to. I haven't looked at the latest proposal but frankly it's likely to be less than a rip-roaring success. I've probably lost more this morning with SSE's share price dropping than the Conservatives are going to be saving me on my fuel bills. And who is going to be lining up to fund the construction of the new power stations we so desperately need?
I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
As it turns out (not that the Labours were to know at the time) it would have done the exact reverse of protecting consumers! Unintended consequences and all that. The Labours were all geared up to freeze energy prices for 20 months. In the next 20 months there was a massive fall in wholesale energy prices that were, at least partially, passed on to consumers. Ed's plan would have done nothing but increase the power companies' profitability and consumers would have been paying much more than they needed to. I haven't looked at the latest proposal but frankly it's likely to be less than a rip-roaring success. I've probably lost more this morning with SSE's share price dropping than the Conservatives are going to be saving me on my fuel bills. And who is going to be lining up to fund the construction of the new power stations we so desperately need?
If my recollection is correct the whole point of the price freeze (and I'm not sure if prices could have been dropped under the proposal however unlikely tbh) was to enable the introduction of a new regulatory regime for the energy market. A market that many of us view as seriously in need of reform.
So it was possible that longer term we would still have benefited even if prices had remained temporarily higher.
And another thing - why do rail fares go up every year to fund, we are told, the future improvement to the network? Would you pay 5 star hotel rates in a B&B because they told you they wanted a contribution to their upgrade costs. I think not.
Is that what they tell you? I don't think that has more than a sliver of truth. As far as I understand this most incompetent of privatizations, "network improvements" are solely in the hands of Network Rail currently state-owned. They get revenue from the franchise holders, such as Virgin. However I thought the terms of the franchise were agreed in advance, together with the expenditure on new trains that the franchise holder might commit to. So I would have thought any extra revenue from price increases goes mainly to the franchise holder's bottom line (or helps stop them going bust if they are incompetent, which a large number of them have been)
I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
As it turns out (not that the Labours were to know at the time) it would have done the exact reverse of protecting consumers! Unintended consequences and all that. The Labours were all geared up to freeze energy prices for 20 months. In the next 20 months there was a massive fall in wholesale energy prices that were, at least partially, passed on to consumers. Ed's plan would have done nothing but increase the power companies' profitability and consumers would have been paying much more than they needed to. I haven't looked at the latest proposal but frankly it's likely to be less than a rip-roaring success. I've probably lost more this morning with SSE's share price dropping than the Conservatives are going to be saving me on my fuel bills. And who is going to be lining up to fund the construction of the new power stations we so desperately need?
I don't think you need to read to realise that there is a Tory bias. Rich press barons decide who tjheir paper is going to support and papers like the Mail and teh Sun are hardly subtle.
Of course I realise that the Mail and Sun (and most press in general) have a right wing bias, which is why I wouldn't choose to read them in isolation to form an opinion.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
As it turns out (not that the Labours were to know at the time) it would have done the exact reverse of protecting consumers! Unintended consequences and all that. The Labours were all geared up to freeze energy prices for 20 months. In the next 20 months there was a massive fall in wholesale energy prices that were, at least partially, passed on to consumers. Ed's plan would have done nothing but increase the power companies' profitability and consumers would have been paying much more than they needed to. I haven't looked at the latest proposal but frankly it's likely to be less than a rip-roaring success. I've probably lost more this morning with SSE's share price dropping than the Conservatives are going to be saving me on my fuel bills. And who is going to be lining up to fund the construction of the new power stations we so desperately need?
If my recollection is correct the whole point of the price freeze (and I'm not sure if prices could have been dropped under the proposal however unlikely tbh) was to enable the introduction of a new regulatory regime for the energy market. A market that many of us view as seriously in need of reform.
So it was possible that longer term we would still have benefited even if prices had remained temporarily higher.
And another thing - why do rail fares go up every year to fund, we are told, the future improvement to the network? Would you pay 5 star hotel rates in a B&B because they told you they wanted a contribution to their upgrade costs. I think not.
Is that what they tell you? I don't think that has more than a sliver of truth. As far as I understand this most incompetent of privatizations, "network improvements" are solely in the hands of Network Rail currently state-owned. They get revenue from the franchise holders, such as Virgin. However I thought the terms of the franchise were agreed in advance, together with the expenditure on new trains that the franchise holder might commit to. So I would have thought any extra revenue from price increases goes mainly to the franchise holder's bottom line (or helps stop them going bust if they are incompetent, which a large number of them have been)
Right? Anyone?
Rightly or wrongly, I was including such must haves as new rolling stock and longer trains in the phrase "improving the network". This quote from a BBC article August last year. Paul Plummer, chief executive of the Rail Delivery Group, which represents the rail industry, said: "We need to sustain investment to build a modern railway, and money from fares helps us to do this." Whether it's true or not is a different matter.
They should call her bluff. Either give them some vanilla nonsense in advance and ask a proper question on camera or turn off the cameras, pack up the mics and feck off outside.
Lynton Crosby's clearly identified she's incapable of thinking on her feet; hence the ridiculously trite slogans she repetitively spews during her every answer, her refusal to put herself up for the leaders debates, hiding inside friendly environments closed to the public and now trying to control controlling the press.
Comments
I thought Labour promised to freeze energy prices in 2015 enforced by politicians?
This pledge seems to be a cap on the amount energy companies can increase variable tariffs annually enforced by OFGEM.
There's probably enough subtle differences to get away with the supporting headline but I haven't read the article to have formed a full opinion.
That said it's way too simplistic to read a Twitter post like that, look at the capital letters and cry hypocrisy. After doing my own research the policies are different.
The labour proposal was blatant market interference. No right wing press are going to support that even if it does protect consumers.
So you don't see the hypocrisy in both parties announcing measures to control the price of energy; one being branded an unnecessary intervention in the free market, the other as some sort of championing of the common people protecting consumers from exploitation? If there's a difference it's that a price freeze might actually have helped those struggling with their bills for a couple of years.
Let's not forget Miliband was labelled a "marxist" and a "conman" by Cameron over this policy.
I haven't looked at the latest proposal but frankly it's likely to be less than a rip-roaring success. I've probably lost more this morning with SSE's share price dropping than the Conservatives are going to be saving me on my fuel bills. And who is going to be lining up to fund the construction of the new power stations we so desperately need?
So it was possible that longer term we would still have benefited even if prices had remained temporarily higher.
And another thing - why do rail fares go up every year to fund, we are told, the future improvement to the network? Would you pay 5 star hotel rates in a B&B because they told you they wanted a contribution to their upgrade costs. I think not.
My point was to highlight to Muttley that I find social media snippets like that and on facebook (I think Fiiish quoted another one the other day) to be more dangerous than a right wing regulated press.
How many of those 3,500+ people who re-tweeted bothered to check out the policy differences but because it suited their political bias decided it was worth sharing and who is accountable for any wrong information being shared? Again to be clear, this isn't a dig at the tweet you shared but more a view of social media in general.
My view on energy prices and future policies is that a government shouldn't interfere with the free market, but OFGEM need to be given more teeth to enforce much tougher criteria for energy companies to increase tariffs. I also think financial penalties OFGEM has raised (£40m) should be put in to reserves and provided to the most vulnerable in society to alleviate the pinch of any future rise in cost. Although I appreciate that defining an eligibility criteria would be extremely difficult so understand why a headline freeze or cap would be favourable to a government.
I maintain that the way the two similar policies are being treated differently is pretty indicative of the way perception is manipulated by our media.
8 - 10
'Labour will freeze energy bills'
as they go on to say
'ensuring that bills can fall but not rise'
So their plan was also a cap?
Have to say reading that extremely brief description it sounds pretty good, but labour will always look to bail out benefit families so I don't believe they would 'deliver a better deal to working families'.
F'd under Labour
F'd under Conservatives
Double F'd under Lib Dems
So we're F'd any which way about it!
It's basically where the players in a particular market both colude and make their product offerings so confusing as to make it impossible for the average customer to make a fair comparison of the products being offered, thus confusing them as to which product they should select and therefore extracting larger profits from a customer base overpaying for unnecessary or unwanted services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusopoly
Right? Anyone?
Lynton Crosby's clearly identified she's incapable of thinking on her feet; hence the ridiculously trite slogans she repetitively spews during her every answer, her refusal to put herself up for the leaders debates, hiding inside friendly environments closed to the public and now
trying to controlcontrolling the press.The EU are going to eat her alive.