Red Ed's Speech and Vision

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

No-one seems to have answered my question about why Miliband is proposing to drive up the cost of energy before the election, and how this will help the poor and needy?

He is not proposing to drive up energy prices he is proposing to cap them. No party can stand for election on a secret manifesto in case there are advance reactions. If the energy companies start hiking their prices then I'm sure the current government will show strong leadership and stop them.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Neil 'doesn't know the price of milk' F .

Who was watching Newsnight last night and saw Paxman take on Boris,then? :winking:

 

[Neil_F]

He is not proposing to drive up energy prices he is proposing to cap them. No party can stand for election on a secret manifesto in case there are advance reactions. If the energy companies start hiking their prices then I'm sure the current government will show strong leadership and stop them.

Yorkshire Blue has raised an issue that is very basic Ricardian economics. It is an answer that has been known for nearly 200 years.

Faced with a temporary cost (Ricardo was talking about tax but it applies equally to a price freeze) an individual or company will bring forward activity/ price rise to reduce the impact of the temporary measure. This is basic stuff.

By promising to freeze prices, Miliband has essentially guaranteed big price rises before the election as energy companies try to mitigate the impact. That is the result of the policy; you are considering only the intention, but governing by intention without consideration of the outcome is a dangerous and naive approach.

you and Barna can dismiss it all you like, but the basic fact is that prices will rise at a faster rate as a result of this announcement.

 

[Davros]

Ironically, even before Milliband had made the announcement, NPower already offered a price fix until Mar 2017, and EDF a price fix until Nov 2016, so it's pretty irrelevent anyway, as if you want that deal two companies already pretty much offered it!

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Yorkshire Blue has raised an issue that is very basic Ricardian economics. It is an answer that has been known for nearly 200 years.

Faced with a temporary cost (Ricardo was talking about tax but it applies equally to a price freeze) an individual or company will bring forward activity/ price rise to reduce the impact of the temporary measure. This is basic stuff.

By promising to freeze prices, Miliband has essentially guaranteed big price rises before the election as energy companies try to mitigate the impact. That is the result of the policy; you are considering only the intention, but governing by intention without consideration of the outcome is a dangerous and naive approach.

you and Barna can dismiss it all you like, but the basic fact is that prices will rise at a faster rate as a result of this announcement.

Did Ricardo have industry regulators in his scenario? Or strong government?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Perhaps because it's so obviously a "nasty party" scare non-story.

What's a non-story: energy price rises? Then why is Milliband proposing a policy?

Or do you honestly think that energy companies won't react to threats of a potential cap by raising prices before hand?

He is not proposing to drive up energy prices he is proposing to cap them. No party can stand for election on a secret manifesto in case there are advance reactions. If the energy companies start hiking their prices then I'm sure the current government will show strong leadership and stop them.

He has made proposals that obviously will drive up the price of energy.

The justification for this seems to be to make the opposition seem weak, given that the energy companies will just pre-empt the cap.

I'm struggling to understand why there isn't more outrage at deliberately provoking price increases for political gain. It's not even as if he's offering a long term solution: it's only a two year cap.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

He is not proposing to drive up energy prices he is proposing to cap them. No party can stand for election on a secret manifesto in case there are advance reactions. If the energy companies start hiking their prices then I'm sure the current government will show strong leadership and stop them.

What's a non-story: energy price rises? Then why is Milliband proposing a policy?

Or do you honestly think that energy companies won't react to threats of a potential cap by raising prices before hand?



He has made proposals that obviously will drive up the price of energy.

The justification for this seems to be to make the opposition seem weak, given that the energy companies will just pre-empt the cap.

I'm struggling to understand why there isn't more outrage at deliberately provoking price increases for political gain. It's not even as if he's offering a long term solution: it's only a two year cap.

The "scare" story about energy price rises (in advance of the election)) is obviously the non-story here.You clearly haven't understood ***'s excellent post,either.

Try reading it again.The answer to your last question is there.

Miliband has made it clear that he will use the two year cap you mention, to determine a long term solution to the Uk's energy problems.

 

[Neil_F]

Did Ricardo have industry regulators in his scenario? Or strong government?

No, but then we don't have either now.

 

[Neil_F]

The "scare" story about energy price rises (in advance of the election)) is obviously the non-story here.You clearly haven't understood ***'s excellent post,either.

That is not an answer. Yorkshire's point is that there will (and already have been) unintended consequences of this announcement. To say that it isn't the intention of the policy and therefore it will not happen is not a mature argument. In fact, it is not even an argument. ( the first unintended consequence was wiping some £2bn off the value of energy companies. You may not care, but millions of people have an indirect investment through their pension).

Miliband has made it clear that he will use the two year cap you mention, to determine a long term solution to the Uk's energy problems.

really, where? I can't take seriously someone whose 2008 Climate Change Act added 9% to energy bills (more than £100 per year) and who has entirely ignored natural gas extraction, which would reduce wholesale gas prices.

 

[dloman]

The "scare" story about energy price rises (in advance of the election)) is obviously the non-story here.You clearly haven't understood ***'s excellent post,either.

Try reading it again.The answer to your last question is there.

Miliband has made it clear that he will use the two year cap you mention, to determine a long term solution to the Uk's energy problems.

Then why did allow them to spiral out of control when HE was the Minister in charge of it?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The "scare" story about energy price rises (in advance of the election)) is obviously the non-story here.You clearly haven't understood ***'s excellent post,either.

Try reading it again.The answer to your last question is there.

Miliband has made it clear that he will use the two year cap you mention, to determine a long term solution to the Uk's energy problems.

So you don't think that the energy companies will put up prices to hedge against a Labour victory?:stunned:

 

[MK Shrimper]

So if elected, the Tories say there will be no benefits at all for anyone under 25.

Welcome to power Ed.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

T.really, where?

In his speech to the Labour party conference and in briefings to the press at the time.

Then why did allow them to spiral out of control when HE was the Minister in charge of it?

Green energy is more expensive.Fact of life I'm afraid.

So you don't think that the energy companies will put up prices to hedge against a Labour victory?:stunned:

I don't think even the Tories would be daft enough to let them get away with that.There'd be a public outcry.

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

So if elected, the Tories say there will be no benefits at all for anyone under 25.

Welcome to power Ed.

Not quite

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24369514

David Cameron has suggested benefits paid to people under the age of 25 could be cut in an effort to reduce long-term worklessness.

Big difference between a definite will, and a slightly less definite suggested/could

Furthermore, if we read further...

"And let no one paint ideas like this as callous. Think about it: with your children, would you dream of just leaving them to their own devices, not getting a job, not training, nothing?

"No - you'd nag and push and guide and do anything to get them on their way… and so must we. So this is what we want to see: everyone under 25 - earning or learning."

So, one would assume (dangerous I know) that there would be assistance for those in education or training. Not saying I necessarily agree with the policy, but it's a long way removed from the scaremongering headline of "no benefits for anyone under 25"

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I don't think even the Tories would be daft enough to let them get away with that.There'd be a public outcry.

Any time you want to visit the real world, be sure to pop by.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Any time you want to visit the real world, be sure to pop by.

I live in the real world everyday.:tease:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Not quite

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24369514



Big difference between a definite will, and a slightly less definite suggested/could

Furthermore, if we read further...



So, one would assume (dangerous I know) that there would be assistance for those in education or training. Not saying I necessarily agree with the policy, but it's a long way removed from the scaremongering headline of "no benefits for anyone under 25"

The headline for the article you quoted was "Tories may cut under-25s' benefits"

That's not a policy, on the face of it, which would appeal to many under 25's,especially if they're unlucky enough to be on benefits.

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

The headline for the article you quoted was "Tories may cut under-25s' benefits"

That's not a policy, on the face of it, which would appeal to many under 25's,especially if they're unlucky enough to be on benefits.

When I click on it, it says as I quoted. Makes no odds though, neither are definite.

As previously said, it's not something I necessarily agree with, just saying it's not quite the same as MKshrimper's scaremongering headline

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

When I click on it, it says as I quoted. Makes no odds though, neither are definite.

As previously said, it's not something I necessarily agree with, just saying it's not quite the same as MKshrimper's scaremongering headline

Any journalist worth his salt will tell you that the headline is an integral part of the article and should be read in conjunction with it.

May indicates possibility.Therefore, there is a distinct possibilty that benefits for under 25's will be cut under the Tories.

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

Any journalist worth his salt will tell you that the headline is an integral part of the article and should be read in conjunction with it.

May indicates possibility.Therefore, there is a distinct possibilty that benefits for under 25's will be cut under the Tories.

Ok, let's try this again shall we? When you click on the link what headline do you get? The one I get is "David Cameron suggests cutting benefits for under-25s".

Now, when read with the article, it at no point says that the Conservatives will do this, just that they may do.

The point I was making, was that it's not a definite (which I took MK's post as stating). Yes it may happen, but there's a big difference between will and may.