Keir Starmer demands ban on raising energy prices

[SuperStu]

Because some will have fixed above the current price cap but less than the October price cap. Freezing the prices where they are will mean those people are paying more than others.

Because people who have locked into a fix in the last 6 months might have locked into 4-5k a year bills out of fear of bills continuing to rise over the next 12-24 months. They most likely have exit fees of £150 per fuel to get out of those deals as well. They may not have an extra £300 to get out of those deals and if svr is capped at £1900 when ofgem is forecasting costs to be much higher, unlikely to be anyone recruiting openly on the pride cap.

By helping one group you disadvantage another, although it is likely to be a smaller group.

I don't think I agree that this "disadvantages" them. But I may not understand it fully. Those people will pay their fixed rate irrespective right? Whether or not the cap goes up for others?

I understand you're saying they may not have chosen to go on a fixed rate if they had prior knowledge that the cap definitely wouldn't be increased. But that's not them being disadvantaged. Surely that's just what a fixed rate is. You're gambling that costs may go up and the energy companies are gambling that it won't?

 

[ThatFragranceGuy]

I don't think I agree that this "disadvantages" them. But I may not understand it fully. Those people will pay their fixed rate irrespective right? Whether or not the cap goes up for others?

I understand you're saying they may not have chosen to go on a fixed rate if they had prior knowledge that the cap definitely wouldn't be increased. But that's not them being disadvantaged. Surely that's just what a fixed rate is. You're gambling that costs may go up and the energy companies are gambling that it won't?

Yeah but suddenly you're paying either a £3k premium through no fault of your own and a £300 penalty to get out of it, if you can 1) afford it and 2) gone a supplier willing to recruit you at svr.

It is a fixed rate, but energy companies aren't gambling - they're offering you a tariff at what they can remain in business offering, if you take it out they hedge the risk on long term markets. It was the day trading companies that went broke banking on continuous cheap fuel and new customers. Svr is where the risk is because they can't control that price lever.

It's not anyones fault for trying to reduce that risk by taking a fix, and cancelling the price cap increase means money needs funding to fund that either way so probably isn't realistic anyway when you look at how much the £400 support cost, but it distinctly advantages anyone who has either remained on svr, and financially punishes anyone who has taken a fix since this began as they've all been astronomically priced.

Suppose the equivalent in footy would be making walk up prices cheaper than the cost per match on a ST to help with fiT of living, when everyone with a ST has already bought at ST price. Not entirely the same, people have taken fixes because they can't afford the continual rise - there would then be people capped at a very low level, over half the amount in many cases, with no easy route to that cap as it would essentially become the market leading rate (and need funding as these prices aren't set on a whim)

 

[Ziggy]

Of course it was. Its a well worn path. Have someone from the party float an idea or two and see how it is received by the public. If it is received well it becomes policy, if not it is quietly dropped with no mud sticking to the party leadership.

Lovely, isn’t it? That plausible deniability