From the UK Labour party website:
The Right Honourable Caroline Flint MP
Ministers have been accused of cooking the books on household energy bills, after figures obtained by Labour revealed that the Government’s claim that energy bills will be £166 lower in 2020 is only true if people splash out thousands of pounds on a new appliances such as TVs, fridge-freezers, washing machines, dishwashers and gas-combi boilers.
Caroline Flint MP, Labour’s Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said:
“The Government’s underhand attempt to mask the real impact of its policies on families’ energy bills is shameful. At a time when hard-pressed families and pensioners are seeing their incomes squeezed, only this out-of-touch Government could expect people to fork out thousands of pounds on new TVs, fridge freezers and washing machines. Instead of cooking the books to trick people into thinking their energy bills will be lower, Ministers should get behind Labour’s plans to overhaul the energy market and deliver fair prices for the public.
So what are labour’s plans that can deliver “fair prices to the public”?
I went to their website to find out, and looked for a link to their policies.
And looked. And looked. But I didn’t find any link to any policy agenda at all. Can anyone help me find “Labour’s plans to overhaul the energy market and deliver fair prices for the public.”?
I’ll be most disappointed if it turns out that the the Right tasty Honourable Caroline Flint is just a pretty-talking-hot-air-head.
Thanks.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
The main problem with spending lots of money on more modern machines is that their lifespans are less than they used to be due to compromises in construction quality and design.
The result is that by the time one has a measurable economic benefit from the new items they are at the end of their useful lives and need replacing yet again.
In terms of resource depletion there is net negative for the environment for little or no economic advantage.
Without those gross subsidies the same principle applies for solar power, wind power and central heating boilers.
Our boiler is now 36 years old and is not as energy efficient as modern machines but we clculated that in light of the 10 year life of a replacement it is best to keep the old boiler going for as long as possible and due to its cast iron construction and simplicity it could go on for many years yet.
DECC’s plans for reducing CO2 include better efficiency, insulation and all sorts of other things.
Nowhere though do they seem to mention that higher temperatures will reduce energy consumption.
I wonder why that is?
[See updated post at 3:01 PM]
Doug Proctor says:
March 27, 2013 at 2:52 pm
Significant typos corrected, first posting needs to be deleted.
Despite my inherent cynicism and suspicion that most politicians are actually fairly ignorant of basic science, economics and practical matters, I can’t shake the feeling that MPs aren’t as stupid as their statements or claims indicate. From painful experiences I have come to believe that there is a hidden or missing piece of the story when A + B simply do not add up to their sum of C.
So, what is the game? What behaviour does higher energy costs create in the average, middle-to-working class that favours the Governors and their lackeys? Or what is it about higher energy costs per se that favours the Governors and their lackeys?
Forget “reduced greenhouse gases” and the reduced global warming. That is what reduced industrial activity does. Private automobiles reduce GHGs through engineering designs brought about by (forced) industrial development. And forget buying new household appliances: you get the new ones when the old ones break or they are your first. The cost-savings do not justify throwing the old ones away before they break. The extra costs are not about carbon emissions.
The extra costs are about extra revenue. But why?
In ye olde days, the Governors taxed to death the non-Governors for the pleasures of the Governors. They could, so they did. The powerful had Good Stuff and the weak, well, nothing, but the powerful simply didn’t care: God provided the sheep to feed the wolves, after all. But today, the foolish money is spent on the State, to provide services that the rich and powerful don’t care about, like subsidized health care, public transport, education for the masses. So what do those who grind you/us down get out of all this bad management?
Offhand, the only thing I can think is that somewhere in the Budget is a very high ticket item of concern to them but that is invoilate. The money for this had to be produced no matter what, but since basic services cannot be removed, simply more money must be had. The only item I can think of that might be “it is the military.
This should be a falsifiable hypothesis. When you look at British history, back to the times of true impoverishment of the common people, was it the military adventures that caused it? W know the powerful Governors are NOT going to have their standard of living decline. If the military have the need, then the middling-poor must be squeezed more. Is that what happened historically?
Today, this is certainly the case for the U.S. of A, North Korea and (recently caused the downfall of) the U.S.S.R. Is it the case for the U.K.? Does the military demand for funding domino through the eonomy and cause the elderly in Manchester to choose either food or heating this winter?
There is something big that cannot be made small. There is some benefit, indirect or not, in taking disposable cash out of the pockets of little people. I got to wonder.
The world of people is a world a step or two removed from direct cause and effect. By instinct, however, we look to the direct in the obvious. Our task is always to look to see if there is a curtain we should be peeking behind.
In the UK the military is being dismantled but there may well be moves towards more use of non military personnel to control potential civil disobedience.
The use of ‘Community Support Officers’ and the extension of the role of the Territorial Army come to mind and the creation of an extra layer of Police management involving the new Commissioners of Police who are supposed to be democratically elected but in practice we seem to be getting establishment placemen.
Then the proposed state control of newspapers who reveal what the elite are getting up to.
And the rationing of energy supplies via the creation of unnecessary shortages.
And the tying up of all the professions in regulatory knots so that they effectively lose their historic independence.
Not looking good.
Doug Proctor, I am surprised that you think that that there is some hidden item, there is not, it is simple, just even more money for them, their families, their sponsors and their cronies.
It’s all very simple
Politicians live to get reelected.
To get reelected they have to tell their constituents what they want to hear.
And their constituents don’t want to hear that energy bills are going up again.
Unless of course they’re in opposition and it’s the government that’s causing them to go up.
The modern political breed really are a bunch of smiling assassins.
In the past parties had manifestos that they stood by. Now they just follow a ‘we wouldn’t have done THAT’ policy.
Doug Proctor asks
what is it about higher energy costs per se that favours the Governors
Or ask how do low energy costs help the powerless.
Low energy costs allow people time and resources to organise their lives and even to oppose government.
Rulers are happier managing scarcity than planning for freedom and prosperity.
Quote: “So what are labour’s plans that can deliver “fair prices to the public”?
I went to their website to find out, and looked for a link to their policies.
And looked. And looked. But I didn’t find any link to any policy agenda at all. Can anyone help me find “Labour’s plans to overhaul the energy market and deliver fair prices for the public.”?”
It seems tallbloke has seen right through the low cut gown and lipstick of false skepticism. And he has also revealed that there is nothing at all underneath the silky red promise of future stable energy supply/prices.
There is just no other way to put it.
@zeke
🙂
@ Stephen Wilde.
You need http://www.intergasheating.co.uk this is the only replacement boiler I would consider buying. Though of course, your cast iron heirloom might still outlast it.
My central heating boiler is 23 yrs old or so and was at best almost 70% efficient then, I am told that it may now only be 50% efficient, whereas the Dutch Intergas boiler is the most efficient on the market at 96%. It also has the least moving parts of any gas boiler and looks as if it has the most solid heat exchanger too.
So I’m giving it some thought at present.
Frankly I think that the idea that modern boilers only last ten years is nonsense, I think they last as long as people want to continue running them, they perhaps get less efficient as time goes by, and need occasional parts, my boiler is a flimsy modern one and it has lasted 23 years and no doubt will go longer if I choose.
However, the prospect of nearly halving my gas bill is making me think of replacing it.
The Government is responsible for increasing consumers’ energy costs per unit through taxes, subsidies and tariffs on sales (AKA taxes). The Government is not responsible for reduced consumption of units of energy as a result of decisions by consumers to invest their own money in new machines or insulation. To attempt to make Government decisions look less expensive than they are by offsetting Government caused costs with volume reductions caused by other people’s investment is childishly absurd.
If I chose not to invest in insulating my house but instead invested in a profitable asset, say a steel mill in Pennsylvania, would the UK Government say that my profit on that investment had reduced the cost of heating my home? If so, they would be incorrect.
Chris Huhne was taken apart by Paxman on Newsnight after making the same ridiculous argument in November 2011 and wriggled like a chopped up worm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9647006.stm).
The government’s position is disengenuous.
All of this misses the point, and diverts attention away from the unnecessary increase in energy price which price rise is simply the result of political ideology.
There is no reason why we cannot have cheap energy AND energy efficiency (eg., energy efficient products, and better insulatione etc) and in which case our energy bills would be even lower than the government suggests.
I do not understand why this is always presented as being ‘Lets have expensive energy AND energy efficiency’ but because of the energy efficiency bills will be lower.
Of course, with energy efficiency the bills will be lower than they would be without energy efficiency, but that is not the point. The material point is that the bills will not be lower than had the position been ‘cheap energy AND energy efficiency’.
Personally, I am very sceptical as to how much energy prices have already risen due to green energy policies. In Spain my energy supplier gives a proper breakdown of the bill. Interestingly, the costs of supply represent about 48% of the total bill costs, and taxes and green subsidies about 52% of the overall bill. I doubt that taxes and green subsidies being paid in Spain are that much higher than in the UK (or USA). In the UK, energy bills have more than doubled in the past 5 to 7 years but the underlying price of energy has not. Eg., the costs of base power coal has not risen by that amount.
J Martin says:
March 27, 2013 at 8:57 pm
////////////////////////////
! have had 3 condenser boilers, which were about 93% efficient. One was the top of the range Vaillant and it lasted only about 6 years before giving problems. I kept it going for another couple of years but by which time repair costs were over £1000. Another, was a cheaper (Italian) model and lasted only about 4 years before it became unreliable requiring repairs of £150 to £200 each year to keep it running. Only 1 has lasted about 10 years and that one was also a Vaillant, but the base model. My experience is that the simpler the better, and the less expensive it will be to repair/maintain
@ Richard Verney.
“My experience is that the simpler the better, and the less expensive it will be to repair/maintain”
Which is why the Intergas boiler is the one I am considering, as I await this winter’s gas bill.
From their website,
No diverter valve or valve motor
No hot water plate heat exchanger
No air pressure switch
Less parts, more reliability