See, not digging at you with the post above Ritchie, but when I posted something about Bercow, I had Greg moaning at me for not offering an opinion etc etc etc. Just this inconsistency must be something personal from him which I just dont get. I mean, i have no issue with posting stuff which is more ‘implied’, and that sometimes we just post things as a ‘musing’ rather than needing a wide debate, or point scoring as some put it. Just twisted my nipples this morning. Anyhow **** it, what’s the point. I only came on here to see if anymore news above beloved Odesa, which looks like they have started bombing, maybe that has lowered my mood and tolerance. I’ll log out for today I think, didnt sleep so well either last night, one of those nights where i felt i was awake all night. Enjoy the game everyone
France: EDF was ordered by its 80% shareholder, the French government, to cap energy price rise at 4%. Investors take the hit. Britain: Chancellor offers compulsory loans to consumers and allows Cap to rise 54% on the same day. Brexit Benefits!!
Sorry Ritchie, I’m being a bit thick here - what has France using EDF to cap prices got to do with Brexit? I mean I like the sentiment, but is that mandated across the EU? I mean, even if we were in the EU i doubt we would have agreed that. Also, EDF as being largely owned by the French state can make such a mandate, the UK government cant, unless they introduce an alternative measures, such as windfall tax or similar, which is not as simple to do. Not saying the Government should be off the hook btw, they should have been doing loads more years ago to sort the energy sector, which is a massive failing. I guess my Q was more i didnt understand the Brexit piece you implied.
The Brexit piece is because Boris said in 2016 energy bills and shopping bills would be cheaper and VAT would be reduced to 0% on energy?
Ah I see, didnt remember that, fair enough. Although that doesn’t really equate to the 4% piece and UK going through the roof, I mean yes if they scrapped VAT (is that still 5%?) it would help, but wouldn’t make a huge bit of difference. It is clear we do need to really think our energy strategy, particularly in light of Russia, and whilst getting some stocks from the Saudies isn’t a bad idea short term, it really isn’t going to help longer than the next months, and Boris right now is more interested in fixing the here and now.
The 4% against the 54% is one government looking after its people, the other is looking after its investors.
Yeah I’m agreeing with that Ritchie in they are looking after their people, I’m trying to explain i dont think it is as easy for us as EDF are the majority shareholder in EDF, whereas we are not. Not saying the Government cant do more btw, i think they could and should, just isn’t quite as simple as it seems.
Ah thanks for sharing I didnt know the 5% thing was from the EU, and I take it we still haven’t removed it? Like i said previously it would be useful, but pretty much a drop in the ocean. Anyhow, we believing the Daily Mail now as I thought that was one that people on here dont believe
This is fairly unambiguous what is being said here. I am sure it is slightly more complicated on “investors” take the hit because of how pensions and things are tied up. This made for slightly odd reading initially
The EU is arguably even more guilty of sleepwalking into the current energy crisis than the UK is. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, most mainland European countries without their own oil and gas resources have become far too reliant on Russian supplies, and that has become all too apparent now. The EU Commission released a statement last week about future energy policy, which can be read here: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_1511 With regard to the question of mitigating prices rises to the consumer, the statement contains the following paragraph: “The Commission's ‘Energy Prices Toolbox' from last October has helped Member States to mitigate the impact of high prices on vulnerable consumers and it remains an important framework for national measures. Today the Commission is presenting Member States with additional guidance, confirming the possibility to regulate prices in exceptional circumstances, and setting out how Member States can redistribute revenue from high energy sector profits and emissions trading to consumers. EU State Aid rules also offer Member States options to provide short-term support to companies affected by high energy prices, and help reduce their exposure to energy price volatility in the medium to long term. Following a consultation on targeted amendments to the Emission Trading System State aid Guidelines, the Commission will also be consulting with Member States onthe needs for and scope of a new State aid Temporary Crisis Framework to grant aid to companies affected by the crisis, in particular those facing high energy costs.” The whole thrust of the statement is based on protecting the domestic consumer from the worst of the price rises, including redistribution of energy company profits. Our government simply has to do the same, rather than fiddling about with repayable loans. Tax the energy companies instead, who are currently enjoying massive profits.
I forgot to include the fact that because the UK government has decided not to cut the 5% VAT on energy, a 2 or 3-fold increase in prices means we will all be paying 2 or 3 times more tax TO THE GOVERNMENT.
Again, please can someone explain why people who have made the decision to choose energy suppliers who use solely renewable sources are being faced with exactly the same price rises as those companies who use fossil fuels/nuclear power? The answer is Ofgem, who say it must be so. It shouldn’t.
Something else that is being missed is the increased amount of VAT being raised through petrol filling stations. The government could reduce the duty on the fuel to lower the fuel price to the same level as before this surge in prices, to help the people, but they most probably won’t.
