| Miliband on 08:50 - Apr 25 with 907 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
The question he should have asked Miliband is why do we have one of the highest energy prices in the OECD?
Miliband says that prices are set internationally but we are paying prices way above that of other countries as UK consumers. |  |
|  |
| Miliband on 09:58 - Apr 25 with 867 views | johnlangy |
The price of our energy is made up of a number of things one of which is the price the energy companies have to pay to buy on the world markets. That price is set externally and the energy companies simply have to pay the current rate.
If we want the price we have to pay to be lower the government could lower the network cost or the government levies. Other than that the energy companies could lower their operating costs or cut their profit margins. The standing charge is the last one which could also be changed.
These last five parts of the cost are within the remit of either the government or the energy companies to alter in order to cut the cost of our energy. The government and the companies have zero control over the base cost of the energy.
The question from the presenter suggested that the 78% tax the government levies on energy company profits affects the price we pay and cutting that tax would cut our costs. If a certain amount of energy was to cost £100 today and the government suddenly decided to cut the 78% tax on energy company profits to say 50% it would have no bearing whatsoever on the cost we pay. The base price of the energy would still be £100 and the only change among the other costs would be that the energy company profits would be much higher.
The energy companies could then decide to use that extra profit to cut our bills (flying pigs) but the government would have no control over that. |  | | |
| Miliband on 10:21 - Apr 25 with 845 views | Boundy |
| Miliband on 09:58 - Apr 25 by johnlangy |
The price of our energy is made up of a number of things one of which is the price the energy companies have to pay to buy on the world markets. That price is set externally and the energy companies simply have to pay the current rate.
If we want the price we have to pay to be lower the government could lower the network cost or the government levies. Other than that the energy companies could lower their operating costs or cut their profit margins. The standing charge is the last one which could also be changed.
These last five parts of the cost are within the remit of either the government or the energy companies to alter in order to cut the cost of our energy. The government and the companies have zero control over the base cost of the energy.
The question from the presenter suggested that the 78% tax the government levies on energy company profits affects the price we pay and cutting that tax would cut our costs. If a certain amount of energy was to cost £100 today and the government suddenly decided to cut the 78% tax on energy company profits to say 50% it would have no bearing whatsoever on the cost we pay. The base price of the energy would still be £100 and the only change among the other costs would be that the energy company profits would be much higher.
The energy companies could then decide to use that extra profit to cut our bills (flying pigs) but the government would have no control over that. |
If any company regardless of what commodity it provided was taxed at 78% who do you think will carry that burden , it won't be and in this case it isn't the energy companies. | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Miliband on 10:39 - Apr 25 with 829 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Miliband on 09:58 - Apr 25 by johnlangy |
The price of our energy is made up of a number of things one of which is the price the energy companies have to pay to buy on the world markets. That price is set externally and the energy companies simply have to pay the current rate.
If we want the price we have to pay to be lower the government could lower the network cost or the government levies. Other than that the energy companies could lower their operating costs or cut their profit margins. The standing charge is the last one which could also be changed.
These last five parts of the cost are within the remit of either the government or the energy companies to alter in order to cut the cost of our energy. The government and the companies have zero control over the base cost of the energy.
The question from the presenter suggested that the 78% tax the government levies on energy company profits affects the price we pay and cutting that tax would cut our costs. If a certain amount of energy was to cost £100 today and the government suddenly decided to cut the 78% tax on energy company profits to say 50% it would have no bearing whatsoever on the cost we pay. The base price of the energy would still be £100 and the only change among the other costs would be that the energy company profits would be much higher.
The energy companies could then decide to use that extra profit to cut our bills (flying pigs) but the government would have no control over that. |
Miliband pretending it's all fixed by the international market was very misleading. | |
| |
| Miliband on 11:39 - Apr 25 with 780 views | johnlangy |
| Miliband on 10:39 - Apr 25 by JACKMANANDBOY |
Miliband pretending it's all fixed by the international market was very misleading. |
How do you believe it is fixed Jack ? | | | |
| Miliband on 13:13 - Apr 25 with 743 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Miliband on 11:39 - Apr 25 by johnlangy |
How do you believe it is fixed Jack ? |
When I say fixed I refer to a price set on the global market, this is what Miliband refers to it is only part of the cost of fuel to the UK consumer as you outlined. [Post edited 25 Apr 14:03]
| |
| |
| Miliband on 13:20 - Apr 25 with 740 views | Flashberryjack |
If Starmer had any common sense he'd sack Miliband.
But he hasn't, and he won't. [Post edited 25 Apr 15:25]
|  |
| |
| Miliband on 16:30 - Apr 25 with 652 views | max936 |
| Miliband on 13:20 - Apr 25 by Flashberryjack |
If Starmer had any common sense he'd sack Miliband.
But he hasn't, and he won't. [Post edited 25 Apr 15:25]
|
Needs to sack himself and Reeves at the same time. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Miliband on 16:35 - Apr 25 with 651 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Miliband on 16:30 - Apr 25 by max936 |
Needs to sack himself and Reeves at the same time. |
Starmer will wait until there is a big issue or some obvious damage then he can have a scapegoat, it's politics as usual. | |
| |
| Miliband on 16:56 - Apr 25 with 630 views | max936 |
| Miliband on 16:35 - Apr 25 by JACKMANANDBOY |
Starmer will wait until there is a big issue or some obvious damage then he can have a scapegoat, it's politics as usual. |
He's been a mitigated disaster so far, no way he turns this around, just a pity there's no one in the Labour Party with a pair gonads to go up against him.
Someone who can rally the party to raise a vote of no confidence against him. | |
| |
| Miliband on 17:51 - Apr 25 with 597 views | johnlangy |
| Miliband on 13:13 - Apr 25 by JACKMANANDBOY |
When I say fixed I refer to a price set on the global market, this is what Miliband refers to it is only part of the cost of fuel to the UK consumer as you outlined. [Post edited 25 Apr 14:03]
|
Yes, the price of gas is set on the global market. The question on Sky news was about the 78% tax rate.
That 78% tax rate is on the energy companies profit. If the government reduced that then the companies profits would rise. And the only way that may reduce the cost of the energy we use would be if the energy companies subsidised the price to us using that excess profit. Does anyone think they would ?
Another thing I don't understand here. It's only a few years ago that the profits of the energy companies soared to unprecedented levels and everyone, probably including all forum members on here, were raging at the unfairness of it and demanding that the government crack down on those profits.
Doesn't anyone remember that ? | | | |
| Miliband on 18:17 - Apr 25 with 581 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| Miliband on 17:51 - Apr 25 by johnlangy |
Yes, the price of gas is set on the global market. The question on Sky news was about the 78% tax rate.
That 78% tax rate is on the energy companies profit. If the government reduced that then the companies profits would rise. And the only way that may reduce the cost of the energy we use would be if the energy companies subsidised the price to us using that excess profit. Does anyone think they would ?
Another thing I don't understand here. It's only a few years ago that the profits of the energy companies soared to unprecedented levels and everyone, probably including all forum members on here, were raging at the unfairness of it and demanding that the government crack down on those profits.
Doesn't anyone remember that ? |
Yes, I'd say people don't often take a systems view of a problem, raise the tax rate to 78 percent on a commercial organisation and you would expect to see significant consequences. [Post edited 25 Apr 18:18]
| |
| |
| Miliband on 22:56 - Apr 25 with 495 views | majorraglan |
I’m no Miliband fan and would like to see the back of him, but quite a few of the points he made are very valid. He doesn’t come across brilliantly in this interview, but elements of it including the Express reporting are politically driven.
The gas under the North Sea is extracted by major PLC companies including BP, Shell, Ineos, Harbour Energy and Equinor ( Norwegian State owned) - they are commercial organisations who operate to make as much profit as they can. There is no state owned British oil/gas company. We have embraced capitalism and market forces.
Britain produces 0.8% of the world’s gas. Britain produces 54% of the gas it uses and imports the other 46% sourcing all its gas on the commercial market and paying the going rate. Some of the gas is sourced from companies paying the 78% tax rate, but some of it isn’t.
Do people really think that if companies weren’t paying 78% tax the oil and gas companies would drop the price and sell it to Britain on the cheap? What would be the incentive to do that when they could benefit from paying the lower tax rate and selling the gas on the commercial market which would enable them to trouser even more cash! Given that maximising profit is generally the goal for a company they are hardly likely take a lower rate when they can get much much more commercially. It doesn’t make sense and goes completely against the concept of the free market economy.
Millband is right about international events such as the invasion of Ukraine impacting on prices. Why would Shell sell oil to the UK at £60 per unit when they can get £120 or more on the international market? It would never happen.
If we had a State owned company supplying our gas the government of the day could control the price and hold it down, or increase it as they saw fit, but we don’t and we’re at the whim of the markets - that has a much bigger impact than the 78% tax rate.
As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, the real question which needs to asked is why is our energy so expensive? We need lower energy because it’s crippling our business and driving a lot of consumers in to energy poverty.
It is my understanding the tariff paid for renewable energy is directly linked to the most expensive energy sourced that day, so if gas is used to generate electricity during a 24 hour period (which it invariably is) then we pay the gas rate for green energy. from wind turbines. Over and above that, if we had a very windy day and were producing 100% of our energy needs via renewable sources, there is nothing in being to stop the owners of the turbines shutting down a number of their turbines which would then reduce supply and necessitate a gas power plant being turned on to keep up with demand and make good the shortfall. Guess what happens then…… yup the turbine owners get the gas rate for energy they’ve produced!!! This could easily be abused to fleece the public and line the pockets of the turbine owners!!! Most countries operate the same model as the U.K.
The State owned Great British Energy company Starmer talked about could make a difference to prices if it was big enough to deliver a huge amount of renewable energy at cheap prices, but it’s going to take years to get off the ground and it would probably be privatised when the Conservatives got back in power!!!
We’re getting shafted every which way! [Post edited 25 Apr 23:05]
| | | |
| Miliband on 00:21 - Apr 26 with 471 views | Robbie |
Milliband comes across as a total wet blanket , all waffle and no final answers .
Even his unconvincing statements on climate contol , etc are laughable .
Have a go at India and China to protect our beloved ozone layer , do they care .
I very much doubt it .
Another nobody Politician earning the money but doing very little to earn his keep .
File alongside so many freeloaders and accept easy money heirachy who govern us . | | | |
| Miliband on 08:17 - Apr 26 with 422 views | Boundy |
| Miliband on 16:35 - Apr 25 by JACKMANANDBOY |
Starmer will wait until there is a big issue or some obvious damage then he can have a scapegoat, it's politics as usual. |
I'd like see him selling the Big Issue ,for real . | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| Miliband on 10:50 - Apr 26 with 378 views | max936 |
| Miliband on 00:21 - Apr 26 by Robbie |
Milliband comes across as a total wet blanket , all waffle and no final answers .
Even his unconvincing statements on climate contol , etc are laughable .
Have a go at India and China to protect our beloved ozone layer , do they care .
I very much doubt it .
Another nobody Politician earning the money but doing very little to earn his keep .
File alongside so many freeloaders and accept easy money heirachy who govern us . |
Thing is we import tons and tons of stuff from both those countries so we are still complicit in polluting the ozone.
The useless Miliband isn't pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. | |
| |
| Miliband on 12:30 - Apr 26 with 346 views | johnlangy |
| Miliband on 00:21 - Apr 26 by Robbie |
Milliband comes across as a total wet blanket , all waffle and no final answers .
Even his unconvincing statements on climate contol , etc are laughable .
Have a go at India and China to protect our beloved ozone layer , do they care .
I very much doubt it .
Another nobody Politician earning the money but doing very little to earn his keep .
File alongside so many freeloaders and accept easy money heirachy who govern us . |
One minor point about the amount of pollution China generates compared with the UK.
They apparently generate 20% of the world's total compared with our 1%. But they do have 20 times the population.
And I wonder how much of that 20% is generated because so many western countries like the UK have effectively exported their pollution generation to China. | | | |
| Miliband on 13:18 - Apr 26 with 334 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Miliband on 09:58 - Apr 25 by johnlangy |
The price of our energy is made up of a number of things one of which is the price the energy companies have to pay to buy on the world markets. That price is set externally and the energy companies simply have to pay the current rate.
If we want the price we have to pay to be lower the government could lower the network cost or the government levies. Other than that the energy companies could lower their operating costs or cut their profit margins. The standing charge is the last one which could also be changed.
These last five parts of the cost are within the remit of either the government or the energy companies to alter in order to cut the cost of our energy. The government and the companies have zero control over the base cost of the energy.
The question from the presenter suggested that the 78% tax the government levies on energy company profits affects the price we pay and cutting that tax would cut our costs. If a certain amount of energy was to cost £100 today and the government suddenly decided to cut the 78% tax on energy company profits to say 50% it would have no bearing whatsoever on the cost we pay. The base price of the energy would still be £100 and the only change among the other costs would be that the energy company profits would be much higher.
The energy companies could then decide to use that extra profit to cut our bills (flying pigs) but the government would have no control over that. |
Well sorry but that's wrong. The energy companies want a certain amount of profit margin, as the tax levy raised the prices went up to ensure that margin remained, and probably rose a fair bit too.
If the tax burden hadn't risen then the price consumers pay wouldn't have risen as much as it has.
We saw this exact same thing with petrol, as they increased tax on it the price per litre rose.
Then there's alcohol, they increase the tax and the over all price rises, there is an inextricable and undeniable link between higher taxes and higher prices and no amount of wordplay will change that.
From another point ofview, when income tax rises we have less disposable income andthe economy slows down, this often results in tax cuts and lower prices, it is all linked. | | | |
| Miliband on 13:59 - Apr 28 with 214 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
Many house ls have chimneys still. I suggest you guys go back to the old coal fireand get your coal delivered.
My mam used to say son leave half an hour before you shower.
Park rays were very good with the fire in a glass and steel box . No insulation back then.
Coal is dirty and gave acid rain to the Scandinavian forests. I do not think they ever sued us. They might do if we went back to coal. A few billion ought to cover it. Being dirty slob is always cheaper.
The English stole our coal then our water and now our wind. Living on English subsidies see butt.
Looks at the big black hole in the ground in Merthyr. No money to tidy it up. Ran out of money again it seems. Who would have thought it. [Post edited 28 Apr 14:05]
|  |
| |
| Miliband on 18:11 - Apr 28 with 116 views | SullutaCreturned |
| Miliband on 12:30 - Apr 26 by johnlangy |
One minor point about the amount of pollution China generates compared with the UK.
They apparently generate 20% of the world's total compared with our 1%. But they do have 20 times the population.
And I wonder how much of that 20% is generated because so many western countries like the UK have effectively exported their pollution generation to China. |
That is just another problem with the Uk approach, we aren't actually cutting world emissions, all we are doing is exporting UK emissions to other countries and then claiming we're the good guys. It's smoke and mirrors, lets all blame China and India when the UK is eco shaming them but we continue to need them to churn out CO2 so we can buy all the shite we buy online.
It's complete bollocks, a fraud of an eco friendly policy and all it's done is drive up all our prices here. Basically us plebs are being bilked so our politicians can look good on the world stage.
Milliband is a fool. | | | |
| Miliband on 20:42 - Apr 28 with 82 views | Flashberryjack |
| Miliband on 18:11 - Apr 28 by SullutaCreturned |
That is just another problem with the Uk approach, we aren't actually cutting world emissions, all we are doing is exporting UK emissions to other countries and then claiming we're the good guys. It's smoke and mirrors, lets all blame China and India when the UK is eco shaming them but we continue to need them to churn out CO2 so we can buy all the shite we buy online.
It's complete bollocks, a fraud of an eco friendly policy and all it's done is drive up all our prices here. Basically us plebs are being bilked so our politicians can look good on the world stage.
Milliband is a fool. |
A dangerous fool. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
