Indeed. And Scottish & Southern only have 3 tariffs. But then Eon and EDF both have 5. British Gas have 7 and Npower have 9.
That's 32 tariffs to compare just from the Big 6 energy companies. All with different Tier 1 & 2 prices or consumption, different standing charges, monthly fees, discounts, leaving fees, or tie-in periods.
There is a reason why so many people don't regularly switch their energy provider and at least a part of the reason why is that it is very complicated to work out.

I don't see how tariff and price simplification could be a bad thing.

I'm with Co-operative Power, they have one tarrif.

There, thats easy isn't it.

Being a members co-operative with no shareholders to satisfy they simply promise that you will always have the cheapest rate for gas or electricity that they can offer, everyone will have that same price, and the more members they have the cheaper the price will become due to their purchasing power.

They don't promise to be the cheapest, but then nor do any of the other energy providers, they promise to be as competitive as they can be and to pass that back to their members.

And you get a divvy too.

What, Cameron pops round too?

I hadn't realised it was that crazy.

But spot on about why – and why people don't make change very often.

It's another of those things where we're all supposed to spend huge chunks of our lives spent researching this stuff, instead of actually having someone or some company actually behaving in a trustworthy manner and with consideration for the customer and an ethos of service.

The average energy bill works out to be about £3.50 per day. Which in reality isn't an awful lot to heat a property, cook, and power all the entertainment that the average house needs.

The people who are supposedly in "fuel poverty" are probably the ones who spend significantly more than that per day on cigarettes, or booze, or gambling without thinking twice about it.

As I said, the price comparison websites make it an absolute cinch to compare, the reason is not the complication, because the donkey work is all done for you. The reason is that very many customers, for example no doubt a huge slice of the elderly, are scared of the very idea od swithcing, or don't need the hassle, or don't have the internet access or confidence required.

I'm thinking that ATEOTD the power companies know very accurately what percentage are likely to change and what percentage are likely to resist change and stay long term despite the fact they could get better deals with other suppliers, and they are content to make money by relying on that resistance to change.


Personally I don't think tariff simplification would do very much at all, if people are fearful or change resistant then that won't alter. Only Cameron's nutty plan, to force companies to put everyone on the lowest tariff, would work but that would sadly not have the effect of saving them any money overall, as the power companies will want to get £X per annum from power sales and they are not too bothered how they do it. How Dave assumes that that "lowest tariff" would be less than people presently pay, overall, is the mystery.

I would definitely be much worse off, as I'm always on the cheapest tariff available, so I suppose I'd end up subsidising those who are unable or unwilling to shop around.

Sounds great doesn't it? £24.50 per week. may sounds a tad different – particularly when you consider all the people who can only get part-time jobs, many of them on minimum wage.



This, I'm afraid, unless you can provide evidence, is just tabloidesque guesswork.

So by your reckoning on the average required to heat & power a home, the average income should be £245 pw.

There is a clear definition of fuel poverty: If a household spends more than 10% of its net income on fuel, they are fuel-poor

how do you work that out? if you enter an agreement to pay so much for so long, that's the contract. of you agree to something that's not the 'cheapest' then that's your problem.

Yes, we know that.

What a great shame that idiot Prime Minister wasn't aware of the fact before he spilled his guts in panic at PMQs

Yes, we know.

Thats not what Camerons new law will state though, to take his word as law (which it clearly won't be as it totally ridiculous) it will be illegal for energy providers to hold or offer contracts which are not the cheapest that they can offer, whether you're at the start or middle of the contract - he said that they will be compelled to offer all of their customers the cheapest available tariff.

Of course we all know thats not what he meant, but he said it, in parliament, in a debate, and the proof that it was purely invented on the hoof is that his own department bumbled an immediate response to say that there were no details yet, and the energy companies had never heard of the suggestion let alone been consulted on it.

Policies invented on the spur of the moment without consultation to give the gullible something to feel good about - thats not what we need from a prime minister.

so, the only words he missed were '...when any fixed term deal ends' or something similar. and if he'd have said that you'd have been in total agreement with him? not really spilling his guts in panic though, was it.

aaah, so you knew what he meant, so you're just having a little hissy fit because he's a tory?

why should the energy companies be consulted on it? in fact, if he had consulted with them you'd probably whine and bleat that they were appeasing the energy companies and it'd be a stitch up anyway!

policies on the spur of the moment to make people feel good? sounds like a bloody good plan for political parties to me. well, unless you do something really stupid, like remove the 10p tax band and hail it as a wonderful step, until someone does a bit of investigation which shows that millions of the poorest in society get screwed, i'd avoid doing something like that. still, people still voted for 'em, in fact i bet there's some who are whining about what the tories are meant to be doing to the poor now who voted for the party that did that.

I heard what he said, its how I deduce what he meant, we all do it, its called language skills.

Of course I'm well aware that he didn't actually mean what he said, because what he said was unworkable and what he said had not been discussed with anyone, not even his own staff who then had to backpedal later in the day.

As for him being a Tory, I couldn't give a tuppeny what colour his politics are, he's the prime minister, he's supposed to be in control, not making things up as he goes along.




Why should the energy companies be consulted on something that is going to so dramatically change their method of supplying the only product they can offer to the public, altering it so much that some of them probably wouldn't want to trade in a business that is suddenly no longer a free market simply because a prime minister wanted to score some points in parliament ?

I can't imagine why ministers should consult industry at all, its a crazy idea, its not as though all of those MP's voting on such things are not already experts on energy markets or even how to set up a billing system to 20 million homes is it, when they vote on such a dramatic u-turn on a free market economy then they'll be able to tell the likes of EON exactly how to run their business because those ministers have so much experience in that field ?




So you agree that policies on the hoof are a bad thing then, especially policies that only the prime minister knows about until the moment he announces them to the most publicised parliament event of the week ?

Yes, it was spilling his guts in panic and creating even more panic behind the scenes.

Fawn as much as you like, he's proving to be an even bigger embarassment to the tories than Ted Heath. He's lurching from one crisis to another like a punch-drunk fairground fighter.

The man's an idiot and has done his best to surround himself with bigger idiots, just to make him look better. He'll be lucky to last to the end of this parliamentary term, the only thing that may keep him going are more lurches to the right but the electorate are starting to see the Emperor really is naked after all. In some ways it's a shame that young fools like you will not get the opportunity to see just what the tories can do to a nation. Unfortunately the cost of that will be borne by the weakest and most vulnerable and that is a price certainly not worth paying again any time soon.

ah, and there it is. young? thanks. just not a bitter git fighting some supposed class war that never was.

if i won't get to see whatever it is they can do to a nation (i'm assuming you mean in a bad way), what are you complaining about? surely you won't see these unimaginable horrors either!

dramatically? not so much when you actually think about it. take e.on, my fixed term just ended last month, they initially put me on the 2nd highest tariff of i think 5 possible ones, if cameron's ridiculously crazy idea comes to fruition, they'll have to put me on the lowest tariff. good lord, it's just a mental idea. yes, they'll take their ball home and just turn the lights off. ffs.


do i? stupid policies done on the hoof are stupid, good policies done on the hoof are good.

To think up a "good policy" while stood addressing parliament, while at the time arguing with someone opposite and trying your best to point score like you were back in some jolly-boys debating class, would take a remarkable individual to suddenly think up a policy in totality, that would work for everyone's benefit from day one, and would be accepted by everyone including the commercial organisations who will be putting it into practice but don't yet know it.

I know that Cameron is not that remarkable individual, and I can't think of one in recent history (ie 50 years) who would fit that bill either.

if 'good policy' can only be described as 'working for everyone's benefit from day one', then even the policies that are studied for bloody years will struggle to be given that description.

It depends what purpose you view parliament as having I suppose.

If you view parliament as a forum where everyone in the country can elect one person to represent their viewpoint during decision making that will affect everyone in the country, then working for the common benefit of the whole of society is indeed the sole aim of a parliament.

If you view parliament as a place where you can persuade, cajole or bribe representatives to make possible things that benefit only certain sectors of society then ultimately you are never going to achieve the aim of benefiting the whole of society for that was never your aim in the first place.

If its the second that applies then we don't need a parliament or a democracy because we had already achieved a monarchic society centuries before we decided that democracy might be a fairer way to go.

not everyone in the country can elect someone. unfortunately we don't give kids the vote.

i've no problem with the 2nd scenario to be honest. one of the tasks of being a voter is to get politicians to do things that benefit the country/yourself, whether that be with cold hard cash or the even better way of not voting for the buggers. build us a new community centre or we wont vote for you is pretty much the same as let me build a supermarket or we won't sign a cheque to the party. every 4 or so years we get to hold these people accountable.

Its a rather selfish attitude though and not at all compliant with "The Big Society", quite the opposite in fact.

the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. there's a small community group round our way that has spent a great deal of time and effort improving a local woodland to make it more accessible/user friendly, however, there's a pond that has collected tons of silt over the years and to clean it up will take £25k or something yet successive councils have dragged their heels and made excuses and i think finally, with council seats in the balance a bit of pressure on the 'i will not vote for you' front has got the money found. there's bugger all selfish about that.

On a national scale though, ultimately the prime purpose of a government is to spend the nations income in our name, for our benefit, without that they have no other purpose and too often political dogma influences those decisions.

To take the NHS as one very simple example, is it better run in state or private hands, if we spend half of the NHS budget on private contractors are we certain that we are getting a better service for all of us who use it, is it cheaper, is there any point in going down the privatisation line if its not cheaper and better, is the money being recirculated back into the economy by way of wages to UK citizens and procurement from UK companies, are the profits being taken (profit is not a dirty word) excessive at the expense of wages and procurement, are company taxes being properly paid in the UK on those profits.

Its never as simple a question of "Private is better than public ownership", sometimes it will be, sometimes its not - that is what we should be paying the politicians to analyse and decide on our behalf across all 650 seats without party prejudice, invoking party whips on crucial votes is an admission of defeat and a sign that party dogma is being enforced by the puppet masters who are rarely elected and often benefitting from the vote.

THIS!

As we are part of the EU, any tendering is open to any company domiciled in the EU. It should not be too difficult to legislate that any company winning a tender for services undertaken on behalf of a prima facie department of any EU member state (i.e. NHS), should pay all taxes relevant in that state. They could also mandate that any EU service providing company, that makes use of any offshore, "tax-efficient" methods be automatically disbarred from tendering in the first place. A letterbox in Jersey or a cupbaord in Switzerland would not count as a bona fide operating company.

There is of course a problem with the political will in implimenting such legislation and that is precisely where the problem lies.

Given that in recent weeks I have offered a nil-cost (to the taxpayer), solution to truly affordable housing, leading to a fiscal stimulus in terms of increased employment, tax-take and reduced benefit payments. A solution to the problems of offshoring personal and corporate tax avoidance, through the introduction of Land Value Taxation and greater transparency in government contracting. I'm frankly surprised that no one has yet prposed me as Benevolent Dictator