Energy price rises and price cap discussion.

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Re light sensors - it should be mandatory that for toilets there is a sensor above each cubicle!

The toilets in our local NHS clinic are all fitted with light sensors.

 

[AM9]

The toilets in our local NHS clinic are all fitted with light sensors.

Do they trigger a call for a nurse if the lights time out and the door is locked?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Do they trigger a call for a nurse if the lights time out and the door is locked?

That is a question that I am not qualified to answer. The NHS clinic in question is a relatively new one and has modern lifts. In the winter months, darkness would be the norm in the toilets unless the lighting was on all the time in there, which it is not.

The disabled toilets do have the usual cord-pull system to summon assistance if so required.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Yeah, my office has had these lights for years. They've served us well during Covid, and since, when there are parts of the office that are no longer occupied on a regular basis. Light is available (for health and safety reasons) but we are not wasting energy. I have been told that across our company, our energy usage has significantly reduced (obviously, more working at home means that most of the savings will be reflected by a corresponding increase in employees' domestic usage).

When I worked at Canary Wharf had these light sensors, that turned off a zone if no movement was detected for about 15 mins.

More interesting was building had no heating either, all the air was ducted from the central core where various units blended it with the warm air from computer server rooms. Effectively they redistributed the heat, and the glazing did the rest, letting in sunlight, but no cold drafts as there were no opening windows.

Re the English changes, good but not enough for new builds in my view.

Re light sensors - it should be mandatory that for toilets there is a sensor above each cubicle!

I worked in an office with those sensors. If you were sat still at your desk eg typing, reading or thinking (not daydreaming obviously), the lights went off leaving you with the screen light and emergency lighting. So every 15 minutes (whatever the timing was) you had to jump up and dance. Which may actually be a positive thing to give a change of posture. As for the toilet version, don't go there, or take your mobile with you for emergency lighting!

I note my local Tesco has dimmed lights until 0900 when the light levels are increased (store opens 0600). I know there are shops where you can trigger the lights up and down as you walk around (obviously at quiet times).

I agree with these measures but they do need to be thought about. Also street lights are not just for motorists who, lets face it, carry their own lights on their vehicle.

 

[Trainbike46]

I note my local Tesco has dimmed lights until 0900 when the light levels are increased (store opens 0600). I know there are shops where you can trigger the lights up and down as you walk around (obviously at quiet times).

I agree with these measures but they do need to be thought about. Also street lights are not just for motorists who, lets face it, carry their own lights on their vehicle.

some train stations in the Netherlands have platform lights that dim (but stay on) until motion sensors detect someone on the platform: it seems like a reasonable compromise: it doesn't ever go dark for safety reasons but uses less energy and causes less light pollution when noone is there

 

[trebor79]

some train stations in the Netherlands have platform lights that dim (but stay on) until motion sensors detect someone on the platform: it seems like a reasonable compromise: it doesn't ever go dark for safety reasons but uses less energy and causes less light pollution when noone is there

Greater Anglia fitted these lights to most of the rural stations a few years ago.

 

[brad465]

An Ofgem board member has resigned over the whole price cap failings:

Ofgem director Christine Farnish resigns over price cap change

A director of the UK's energy watchdog quits over the way the energy price cap will be set.

www.bbc.co.uk

A non-executive director at energy regulator Ofgem has quit over changes to the way the energy price cap is set.
Christine Farnish told The Times she felt the regulator had not "struck the right balance between the interests of consumers and interests of suppliers".
Ofgem is in charge of setting the level at which domestic energy costs are capped every three months.
The watchdog thanked Ms Farnish "for her many years of devoted service".
In her interview with the Times, Ms Farnish said she disagreed with a decision to change the cap to enable suppliers to recoup certain wholesale costs sooner - a measure the regulator has said would prevent more suppliers going bust.
An Ofgem spokesperson said: "Due to this unprecedented energy crisis, Ofgem is having to make some incredibly difficult decisions where carefully balanced trade-offs are being weighed up all the time.
"But we always prioritise consumers' needs both in the immediate and long term."

The regulator has faced criticism for raising the energy price cap - the maximum amount suppliers can charge domestic customers in England, Scotland and Wales for each unit of energy - this October.
The cap is designed to protect consumers from short-term price changes and is adjusted by Ofgem every three months - based on the price energy suppliers pay producers for electricity and gas.
Consumer rights campaigner Martin Lewis has previously accused the regulator of "selling consumers down the river".
October's price cap is due to be announced at the end of this month.
Energy industry analysts Cornwall Insight predict an average annual bill will reach £3,582 at this point - £200 higher than the previous estimate.
In January 2023, when the the cap is due to be changed again, Cornwall Insights expects the cap to go up to £4,266.
The higher estimate means the average household would be paying £355 a month, instead of £164 a month currently.
Energy prices have risen sharply because demand for gas increased when Covid restrictions eased, and because the invasion of Ukraine has threatened supplies from Russia.
Ofgem recently changed the rules so the cap can be revised every three months instead of every six, saying this would make it less likely that more energy suppliers would collapse, and allow consumers to feel the benefit of any future fall in prices more quickly.
Twenty nine energy suppliers have failed in the UK in the past year.
Responding to Ms Farnish's resignation, an Ofgem spokesperson said that the rest of the board members had decided a shorter recovery period for energy costs was in "the best interest" of consumers in the "long term".
The spokesperson said the change reduced the "very real risk of suppliers going bust, which would heap yet more costs onto bills and add unnecessary worry and concern at an already very difficult time".
A spokesperson from the government's business department said: "We are aware of a resignation at the Board of Ofgem, which has been accepted."
Ms Farnish declined to comment further.

 

[Stephen42]

Some of it is increased network prices (inflation effecting materials, wages, etc) but to my knowledge the overwhelming majority of the rise is bailing out the failed energy companies and all their customers. One might question whether its right that Ofgem's lackadaisical regulation of the sector which allowed for private companies to be set up, profits extracted during good times and then the individuals who profited to cut their losses and the mess over to the taxpayer and bill payers...

Nearly all of the electricity standing charge rise is network cost allowance; £67 out of the £71 increase (excluding 5% VAT), of that £34 is due to failed suppliers. The other major component is methodology changes moving more network cost into standing charges rather than on consumption, with 'typical' consumption the total network cost increase goes down to £48.

As was on the same spreadsheet for anyone interested the only "policy cost"/"environment and social obligation" charge included in the electricity standing charge is the warm home discount costing £10 per year.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As was on the same spreadsheet for anyone interested the only "policy cost"/"environment and social obligation" charge included in the electricity standing charge is the warm home discount costing £10 per year.

Is that small figure per household?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Nearly all of the electricity standing charge rise is network cost allowance; £67 out of the £71 increase (excluding 5% VAT), of that £34 is due to failed suppliers. The other major component is methodology changes moving more network cost into standing charges rather than on consumption, with 'typical' consumption the total network cost increase goes down to £48.

As was on the same spreadsheet for anyone interested the only "policy cost"/"environment and social obligation" charge included in the electricity standing charge is the warm home discount costing £10 per year.

Rather more 'policy cost' / 'environmental and social obligation' being included within the unit price though.

An easy one for the government to remove to help people out. Easy to identify, easy to remove from the cap calculations, easy to justify. There might even be votes in it. The line of spin could go "The government has chosen to pay the costs of 'insulation for poor people', for the 'move to green generation', for the 'costs of re-imbursement of credit balances due to the waste of space regulator and the governments abject failure to manage that regulator'. Ok perhaps not the last one but it would raise a smile. Gordon Brown and his 'light touch' regulation allover.

 

[trebor79]

Rather more 'policy cost' / 'environmental and social obligation' being included within the unit price though.

An easy one for the government to remove to help people out. Easy to identify, easy to remove from the cap calculations, easy to justify. There might even be votes in it. The line of spin could go "The government has chosen to pay the costs of 'insulation for poor people', for the 'move to green generation', for the 'costs of re-imbursement of credit balances due to the waste of space regulator and the governments abject failure to manage that regulator'. Ok perhaps not the last one but it would raise a smile. Gordon Brown and his 'light touch' regulation allover.

But it wouldn't be "the government". It would be "the taxpayer", ie the same people who are struggling to pay energy bills. If they take these charges off bills either you pay more tax, or you accept less money going into other public services.

 

[AM9]

But it wouldn't be "the government". It would be "the taxpayer", ie the same people who are struggling to pay energy bills. If they take these charges off bills either you pay more tax, or you accept less money going into other public services.

Well at least the poorest in society (which includes many who work) won't get hit with more tax.

 

[Senex]

Nearly all of the electricity standing charge rise is network cost allowance; £67 out of the £71 increase (excluding 5% VAT), of that £34 is due to failed suppliers. The other major component is methodology changes moving more network cost into standing charges rather than on consumption, with 'typical' consumption the total network cost increase goes down to £48.

As was on the same spreadsheet for anyone interested the only "policy cost"/"environment and social obligation" charge included in the electricity standing charge is the warm home discount costing £10 per year.

But why should the cost of the failed suppliers fall on electricity bill-payers rather than on general taxation, since it's a cost arising from a failure of government and regulatory policy? In the same way, why should the bill-payers for utilities meet the cost of subsidies to those deemed unable to pay the going rate? It's government policy that they should be helped, so it should be a charge on general taxation shared out amongst all of us.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

But it wouldn't be "the government". It would be "the taxpayer", ie the same people who are struggling to pay energy bills. If they take these charges off bills either you pay more tax, or you accept less money going into other public services.

Yes but that applies to any public spending. The Government, in itself, doesn't have any money, the nation has wealth (oil etc) and tax income. However money can be borrowed in the short/medium term. At current inflation, with low interest rates, £1bn shrinks very quickly indeed. High inflation is just great for reducing the real terms value of debt (and savings).

Pay on the nail for NHS treatment or pay through taxation. The people paying taxes are not necessarily the ones paying the levy on bills. Your £10,000 pensioner or Universal Credit claimant isn't paying much tax but will be paying £4,000 (perhaps less a bit of a handout) for energy in the new year.

 

[AM9]

Your £10,000 pensioner or Universal Credit claimant isn't paying much tax but will be paying £4,000 (perhaps less a bit of a handout) for energy in the new year.

Hence the increasing uproar about Truss's plans to fix everything with reduced tax. That's even worse that the usual right-wing 'crumbs from the rich man's table' wealth flowdown con.

 

[trebor79]

Yes but that applies to any public spending. The Government, in itself, doesn't have any money, the nation has wealth (oil etc) and tax income. However money can be borrowed in the short/medium term. At current inflation, with low interest rates, £1bn shrinks very quickly indeed. High inflation is just great for reducing the real terms value of debt (and savings).

Pay on the nail for NHS treatment or pay through taxation. The people paying taxes are not necessarily the ones paying the levy on bills. Your £10,000 pensioner or Universal Credit claimant isn't paying much tax but will be paying £4,000 (perhaps less a bit of a handout) for energy in the new year.

Which just disproportionally affects the middle classes if the cost burden is lumped onto taxation. Sorry, but we cant just keep spraying tens of billions of pounds at every issue the crops up. That way we end up taxed into oblivion, and/or degraded public services and/or rampant inflation if the response is to crank the money printers up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which just disproportionally affects the middle classes if the cost burden is lumped onto taxation. Sorry, but we cant just keep spraying tens of billions of pounds at every issue the crops up. That way we end up taxed into oblivion, and/or degraded public services and/or rampant inflation if the response is to crank the money printers up.

Every other progressive European country disagrees. If you want to go live in somewhere backward* like the US, be my guest, but I'd rather see 10% on my income tax than lose healthcare free (or nominally charged**) at the point of use.

* Not insulting Americans, but not having socialised healthcare is in and of itself backward in my view
** I could be sold on different models, e.g. German style social insurance which I favour over a monolithic NHS, and could be sold on £10 for a GP visit (non-refundable if not attended without phoning up to cancel) being fairer than a £2 packet of pills costing £10 but a £20K operation costing nowt, and I wouldn't see a huge issue with charging for hospital food at cost as you'd be buying it if you were at home, but the principle is fairly clear.

 

[najaB]

I could be sold on different models, e.g. German style social insurance which I favour over a monolithic NHS, and could be sold on £10 for a GP visit (non-refundable if not attended without phoning up to cancel) being fairer than a £2 packet of pills costing £10 but a £20K operation costing nowt, but the principle is fairly clear.

While the exact figures are made up, the principle is that many instances of £8 'profit' on £2 pills pays for the small number of £20K operations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While the exact figures are made up, the principle is that many instances of £8 'profit' on £2 pills pays for the small number of £20K operations.

It's not that that I'm objecting to (your point also applies to e.g. hospital car parking), it's the charge purely being on medication.

As the GP is the entry point for near enough all NHS treatment (you could charge the same for A&E or walk-in centres) it'd be fairer to charge everyone £10* for the consultation that begins each course of treatment than to only charge for one specific type of treatment i.e. medication supplied from a community** pharmacy. That'd also allow that £10 to be forfeit for failure to attend, a big issue at GP surgeries.

It's also a bit unfair for those of us requiring ongoing medication; only for a very few chronic conditions is this waived, not for all of them.

* or whatever
** Medication issued from a hospital pharmacy is free

 

[najaB]

It's not that that I'm objecting to, it's the charge purely being on medication.

That's fair enough. Perhaps a fairer system would be a charge for the first prescription but not for repeats. That way people would be discouraged from wasting medicines (as happens when they are entirely free) but not punished for long-term illness.

 

[Trainbike46]

It's not that that I'm objecting to (your point also applies to e.g. hospital car parking), it's the charge purely being on medication.

As the GP is the entry point for near enough all NHS treatment (you could charge the same for A&E or walk-in centres) it'd be fairer to charge everyone £10* for the consultation that begins each course of treatment than to only charge for one specific type of treatment i.e. medication supplied from a community** pharmacy. That'd also allow that £10 to be forfeit for failure to attend, a big issue at GP surgeries.

It's also a bit unfair for those of us requiring ongoing medication; only for a very few chronic conditions is this waived, not for all of them.

* or whatever
** Medication issued from a hospital pharmacy is free

I agree the prescription charges are unfair. Fortunately NI and Scotland seemed to have resolved that, by not charging for prescriptions at all.

As for using a small charge for people not showing up for appointments, There have been some cases in other countries were introducing similar charges actually leading to more no/late shows, as people felt they'd "paid for it" so didn't feel as bad anymore for not showing up. So it might work, but it also might backfire and would require careful consideration (which I don't think anyone in the cabinet is capable of, unfortunately)

An alternative for reducing no-shows at GPs might be asking someone who didn't show, why they didn't, and reminding them to cancel if they can no longer make it. Possibly, you could even de-prioritise appointments for people who repeatedly miss appointments with no good reason.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Our local NHS dental practice has a ruling that states two missed appointments without advance notification mean you will be looking for a different NHS dentist.

 

[DelayRepay]

An alternative for reducing no-shows at GPs might be asking someone who didn't show, why they didn't, and reminding them to cancel if they can no longer make it. Possibly, you could even de-prioritise appointments for people who repeatedly miss appointments with no good reason.

I fear we're going off topic, but I don't understand the claim that no-shows are costing GPs so much money. My own GP overbooks, they're always running late, so if there's a no-show it just helps them to catch up. Most people will arrive at least a few minutes early for their appointment so it's not like the GP doesn't have anyone to see.

If we did somehow stop all no-shows, the GPs would probably complain about being even busier and not getting a minute to breath in between patients.

 

[MikeWM]

I fear we're going off topic, but I don't understand the claim that no-shows are costing GPs so much money. My own GP overbooks, they're always running late, so if there's a no-show it just helps them to catch up. Most people will arrive at least a few minutes early for their appointment so it's not like the GP doesn't have anyone to see.

If we did somehow stop all no-shows, the GPs would probably complain about being even busier and not getting a minute to breath in between patients.

Agreed; it is even worse in outpatients clinics in my experience. When I had trouble with my eyes, I spent vast proportions of time in the Opthamology clinic. It wasn't unusual for them to be running 2 hours behind, and very rare indeed to be seen within an hour of the appointment time.

This attack on no-shows feels like a crude attempt at deflection to me - if we're busy attacking each other for not using the NHS 'properly', they hope it may take some of the heat off the many serious problems it currently has, and the politicians for letting it get to that state.

 

[yorkie]

Can we stick to the thread title as much as possible please?

if there is any other topic anyone wishes to discuss that is worthy of a thread and not already covered by an existing thread, feel free to create one.

 

[Pete_uk]

We use about £60 in electricity a month, so for four months we will be almost getting free leccy with the amount the government is giving us via British Gas

 

[trebor79]

Every other progressive European country disagrees. If you want to go live in somewhere backward* like the US, be my guest, but I'd rather see 10% on my income tax than lose healthcare free (or nominally charged**) at the point of use.

* Not insulting Americans, but not having socialised healthcare is in and of itself backward in my view
** I could be sold on different models, e.g. German style social insurance which I favour over a monolithic NHS, and could be sold on £10 for a GP visit (non-refundable if not attended without phoning up to cancel) being fairer than a £2 packet of pills costing £10 but a £20K operation costing nowt, and I wouldn't see a huge issue with charging for hospital food at cost as you'd be buying it if you were at home, but the principle is fairly clear.

10% on income tax would bankrupt me and many other middle class families.
I've taken steps to limit my exposure to very high energy prices. I really don't see why I should be pushed into penury to support those that haven't.
If you want to live in a socialist state, go live in Chine, Cuba, Venezuela or Russia.

 

[Bletchleyite]

10% on income tax would bankrupt me and many other middle class families.s

In which case you're living well beyond your means and need to rein yourself in. It's unlikely 10% will be whacked on income tax, but it's quite possible interest rates will go up substantially, as will energy bills long term (you can only fix/hedge for so long), and they'll clout you as much as if not more than 10 percentage points on the higher rate (i.e. 40->50%) would come near to doing.

The poor have no choice but to live beyond their means, but middle class people have lots of "flex", e.g. changing down to a cheaper car or to one car rather than two, downsizing their house, fiddling with their mortgage etc.

But do you want to know what would bankrupt you? A cancer diagnosis in the USA. That would. That is why socialised medicine is essential.

There are people in the US who are Type 1 diabetic and will die if they don't have insulin, but can't afford it. That isn't OK. I'm not even going to enter into debate about why it isn't OK, it just obviously isn't.

I've taken steps to limit my exposure to very high energy prices. I really don't wee why I should be pushed into penury to support those that haven't.
If you want to live in a socialist state, go live in Chine, Cuba, Venezuela or Russia.

Apart from that only one of those countries (Cuba) is actually socialist, even though the others claim to be, what you're suggesting is that you want our package of services in the UK to be reduced from their traditional levels to those more like the United States in order to save you money. The traditional UK isn't a socialist state, it's a slightly-right-of-centre social democracy. My preference would be that the UK moves a little bit to the left to be a more similar country to Scandinavian countries or the Netherlands etc. That clearly isn't yours, which is fine, but what I'm utterly unwilling to countenance is a move that would take us further right than Thatcherism.

The United States is over there <<<< if you prefer that.

 

[trebor79]

In which case you're living well beyond your means and need to rein yourself in.

Nope. See below.

It's unlikely 10% will be whacked on income tax, but it's quite possible interest rates will go up substantially, as will energy bills long term (you can only fix/hedge for so long), and they'll clout you as much as if not more than 10 percentage points on the higher rate (i.e. 40->50%) would come near to doing.

So I quit my 10 year fixed mortgage 30 months early a few months ago. Even paying the penalty (which I just put back onto the mortgage) I got an even cheaper 10 year fix which slightly lowered my monthly payments and means I pay off a year earlier than I would have. So interest rates aren't a concern for the next decade, by which time the remaining mortgage will be small (especially in the context of rampant price and wage inflation). It was obvious rates were going to go up, and I could see they might be ruinous for me if I was exposed when my fix ended. So I acted.
I've bitten the bullet and ordered an electric car as fuel and maintenance costs are so tiny compared to fuel its cost neutral after about 5/6 years and profitable after that point.
I've invested in home batteries (just about to be installed) which mean I will buy essentially all of my electricity at cheap overnight rates. So electricity prices aren't a concern.
The only thing left is heating oil, I may install air conditioning which would also provide heating in winter, adding some more batteries and upgrading to a 3 phase supply (just a matter of asking for the fuses to be fitted as the cables are already there, unusally) might make that viable. But oil is not ruinously expensive at the moment so a bit of a wait and see there.

The poor have no choice but to live beyond their means, but middle class people have lots of "flex", e.g. changing down to a cheaper car or to one car rather than two, downsizing their house, fiddling with their mortgage etc.

Which is exactly what I've done. I see lots of poor people wearing designer clothes, dressing their kids in expensive branded clothes and trainers and sporting the latest smart phones. We wear supermarket clothes and stuff bought at big end of season discounts. Who do you see eating loads of expensive takeaway and junk food "the poor", and certain lefties tell us it's because fruit, veg and base ingredients are beyond their means - a total joke scoffing Dominos pizza (I've never bought one as they are ludicrously expensive) whilst saying they can't afford to cook a healthy meal for their family, that might cost £1 if eating quite lavishly.
I find this "the poor have to live beyond their means" as fallacious as the stories about a decade ago of coffee farmers making a loss - there would be no coffee farming in that case as they'd literally have been better off doing nothing!

But do you want to know what would bankrupt you? A cancer diagnosis in the USA. That would. That is why socialised medicine is essential.

100% agree with you there

Apart from that only one of those countries (Cuba) is actually socialist, even though the others claim to be, what you're suggesting is that you want our package of services in the UK to be reduced from their traditional levels to those more like the United States in order to save you money. The traditional UK isn't a socialist state, it's a slightly-right-of-centre social democracy. My preference would be that the UK moves a little bit to the left to be a more similar country to Scandinavian countries or the Netherlands etc. That clearly isn't yours, which is fine, but what I'm utterly unwilling to countenance is a move that would take us further right than Thatcherism.

No, I'm suggesting I don't want to spend yet more tens of billions that the country doesn't have supporting people through another temporary set of circumstances when the vast majority of them have done nothing to help themselves. Rising inflation rates and rising energy costs have been well flagged, long before Russia went on the rampage in Ukraine. Last July gas was trading at a higher price than the previous winter, which I remember thinking was very odd and now kick myself for not acting sooner than I did given this obvious warning.
We seem to be descending into a status where the press and osme of the populace expect the government to solve all of their problems all of the time. I want a government that has the balls to say "No, solve it yourself, you are not helpless".
We can't afford to go on like this.
Fundamentally, I want a smaller government. Government and taxes should provide (in no particular order):
Defence
Law and order
Education
Health care
Cultural things like museums
National parks
Policies and laws that make for a nice community and enviornment

Everything else should be swept away IMO.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fundamentally, I want a smaller government. Government and taxes should provide (in no particular order):
Defence
Law and order
Education
Health care
Cultural things like museums
National parks
Policies and laws that make for a nice community and enviornment

Do I guess that public transport and roads would come under the last one? Because we can debate about branch lines all we like, but stuff like the Little North Western, the Conwy Valley and the S&C is de-minimis and doesn't even cost that much. Withdrawal of rail subsidy would make the present reduced Avanti service look superb, and would mean huge traffic congestion issues in major cities across the UK as their subsidised urban rail closed down and car usage skyrocketed.

Is there actually a single country in the world (other than those which lack any sort of practical Government at all and have the likes of private minibuses plying the streets) that doesn't have subsidised major city urban transport of some kind?

I think those are indeed the key things a state should provide.

My personal take on energy is roughly:

1. We are going to have to consider funding a major programme of insulation retrofit on the housing stock from taxation. EVERYONE is going to have to do it (even if they don't like the Hobson's choice between rendering the outside of their olde worlde stone cottage or accepting slightly smaller rooms to do it inside), landlords need to be forced to do it, and not everyone can afford to do it now. If preferred, as you've already invested, it could be done by way of a charge on the property rather than a grant so it's paid back on sale (as I think someone suggested upthread), but it needs fronting, and it needs doing pretty quickly. We will also need to do stuff like loosen listed building/conservation area rules to allow e.g. leaky old sashes to be viably replaced or secondary glazed.

1a. Effective immediately, a standard like Passivhaus (maybe not Passivhaus itself, as it has many complexities, but that sort of idea) should be mandatory for all new build planning applications.

2. We may need to help people in the short term deal with the cost of energy increases, because lots of bankrupt people isn't a good thing. You could means test it, but we need to remember that the benefits system to some extent smooths inconsistencies in pay, e.g. why does a carer get minimum wage whereas I get many times that for doing an easier job just because I have excellent IT skills? It's the speed of the price increases that is kicking people, not the fact that there is an increase.

3. I do however support nationalised basic utilities, i.e. bring back the CEGB and some sort of British Rail as QuANGOs as they once were (i.e. a bit like Network Rail - being mostly set a budget and a direction but able to employ professionals to work out how to do that exactly), and allow, but not mandate, local authorities to set up bus companies if they wish. They are strategically important, and we need a level of protectionism and self-containment of these and the skills to provide them, as Russia have demonstrated we could lose a war on this matter alone - it's existential.