UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
JustAnotherLogin said:
A levie like this is aimed at changing behaviour, not raising tax. Whether or not you think the govt should be changing that behaviour I will take as irrelevant for this question as it has not been asked. The predominance of private PV installations is roughly proportional to energy usage of the household- which one would expect- so it is impacting behaviour where it is needed most. Though aggregators actually tip the balance the other way- so one could argue the subsidisation there is the other way. So take your stats and twist to get the answer you want. As I say, I think it is meaningless
Not meaningless to those in fuel poverty, or to those companies which are energy intensive. BTW when you say 'changing behaviour' do you mean eating less to be able to afford heating? Or do you mean companies relocating to other countries with saner energy policies, taking the jobs and investment with them?JustAnotherLogin said:
And the average annual energy bill (dual gas and electricity) last year was £1264
Now I know UKIP have a timeshare on Ed Balls calculator, but even so they should be able to twig that 10% or even 20% of that doesn't mean that they have added £000s. Unless they mean added nothing I suppose
Now I know UKIP have a timeshare on Ed Balls calculator, but even so they should be able to twig that 10% or even 20% of that doesn't mean that they have added £000s. Unless they mean added nothing I suppose
s2art said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
A levie like this is aimed at changing behaviour, not raising tax. Whether or not you think the govt should be changing that behaviour I will take as irrelevant for this question as it has not been asked. The predominance of private PV installations is roughly proportional to energy usage of the household- which one would expect- so it is impacting behaviour where it is needed most. Though aggregators actually tip the balance the other way- so one could argue the subsidisation there is the other way. So take your stats and twist to get the answer you want. As I say, I think it is meaningless
Not meaningless to those in fuel poverty, or to those companies which are energy intensive. BTW when you say 'changing behaviour' do you mean eating less to be able to afford heating? Or do you mean companies relocating to other countries with saner energy policies, taking the jobs and investment with them?Solar PV is brought by relatively well off people who can afford it, they then get paid for 50% of the power they produce no matter how much of it they actually use themselves.
this power is paid for out of the climate levy on all our bills (currently some 12%)
so, the poorer in society who live in rented accommodation etc are paying to subsidise the richer homeowners who can afford solar PV.
that's 12%, or on a typical £750 PA bill (average elec bill for a medium sized house), that's some £90 in Green tax
(not forgetting there's also another 5% on your gas bill, typically another £42)
if you're a small/medium business, you have to pay the Climate Change Levy, currently 0.541/Kwh (going up in April to 0.554) so that's typically ~5.5% loading on your typical elec rate.
so, whichever way you cut it, the poorer end of society are paying the most and subsidising the better off.
so Mr JAL, not much is actually some £132 of your average bill, ie. just over 10%, and that's at todays money, the levy's are set to rise year on year.
now, can you imagine how much happier everybody would be if their bills suddenly went down that 10+%? (in the context of the companies slicing a few % of the price of gas, this would be a massive change)
the elephant is the room is electricity prices going into the future, much as the price for gas and the like is falling on world markets, the price of electricity here has not moved, and is only ever likely to go up.
now, look at what ECO s
t heat pump systems are being built into new social housing:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203899/Su...
or the non-wail version:
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/another-landlord-hi...
so, here we have the very poorest families in social housing being the victims of the green spastics, how do you see this panning out?
Edited by Scuffers on Saturday 31st January 08:16
Scuffers said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
And the average annual energy bill (dual gas and electricity) last year was £1264
Now I know UKIP have a timeshare on Ed Balls calculator, but even so they should be able to twig that 10% or even 20% of that doesn't mean that they have added £000s. Unless they mean added nothing I suppose
Now I know UKIP have a timeshare on Ed Balls calculator, but even so they should be able to twig that 10% or even 20% of that doesn't mean that they have added £000s. Unless they mean added nothing I suppose
s2art said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
A levie like this is aimed at changing behaviour, not raising tax. Whether or not you think the govt should be changing that behaviour I will take as irrelevant for this question as it has not been asked. The predominance of private PV installations is roughly proportional to energy usage of the household- which one would expect- so it is impacting behaviour where it is needed most. Though aggregators actually tip the balance the other way- so one could argue the subsidisation there is the other way. So take your stats and twist to get the answer you want. As I say, I think it is meaningless
Not meaningless to those in fuel poverty, or to those companies which are energy intensive. BTW when you say 'changing behaviour' do you mean eating less to be able to afford heating? Or do you mean companies relocating to other countries with saner energy policies, taking the jobs and investment with them?Solar PV is brought by relatively well off people who can afford it, they then get paid for 50% of the power they produce no matter how much of it they actually use themselves.
this power is paid for out of the climate levy on all our bills (currently some 12%)
so, the poorer in society who live in rented accommodation etc are paying to subsidise the richer homeowners who can afford solar PV.
that's 12%, or on a typical £750 PA bill (average elec bill for a medium sized house), that's some £90 in Green tax
(not forgetting there's also another 5% on your gas bill, typically another £42)
if you're a small/medium business, you have to pay the Climate Change Levy, currently 0.541/Kwh (going up in April to 0.554) so that's typically ~5.5% loading on your typical elec rate.
so, whichever way you cut it, the poorer end of society are paying the most and subsidising the better off.
If in the past you've complained to CMD about nonsensical Tory energy/environment policies, with data backing your position, the email with a standard vacuous reply may well have come from Alice Sheffield. That'll be CMD's sister-in-law, paid (from Party funds) to issue manure.
Scuffers said:
if you're a small/medium business, you have to pay the Climate Change Levy, currently 0.541/Kwh (going up in April to 0.554) so that's typically ~5.5% loading on your typical elec rate.
Only if you're not a very clever business. If you do not wish to pay CCL charges, then all you need to do is go to your energy provider and contract to buy LEC-backed power. And if you do this with a flexible-price contract contract rather than a fixed-rate tariff, you can benefit even more. Want even cheaper power still? Do a Demand Response deal with your supplier.Edited by Scuffers on Saturday 31st January 08:08
There are loads of ways businesses can manage down their electricity bills, especially if they go to smart metering.
Gaspode said:
There are loads of ways businesses can manage down their electricity bills, especially if they go to smart metering.
Hang on, doesn't that mean they're still killing the climate or the planet or both? Surely this was all done to save bunny rabbits and our children's children? If we don't pay shedloads more tax for politicians to spunk away then the polar bear gets it. Right? People who own and run businesses that reduce their energy taxes will never again sleep at night.Or, the whole thing is Alice in Wonderland and why bother faffing about just repeal the CCA, it was pointless and still is - except to raise tax on the back of fairytales. Is there a party around that would do that?
Gaspode said:
Scuffers said:
if you're a small/medium business, you have to pay the Climate Change Levy, currently 0.541/Kwh (going up in April to 0.554) so that's typically ~5.5% loading on your typical elec rate.
Only if you're not a very clever business. If you do not wish to pay CCL charges, then all you need to do is go to your energy provider and contract to buy LEC-backed power. And if you do this with a flexible-price contract contract rather than a fixed-rate tariff, you can benefit even more. Want even cheaper power still? Do a Demand Response deal with your supplier.Edited by Scuffers on Saturday 31st January 08:08
There are loads of ways businesses can manage down their electricity bills, especially if they go to smart metering.
it's the SME's caught up in this CCL crap and have zero idea that they even are, they are too busy trying to keep their heads above the water working hard to keep their businesses going than spend hours figuring all this crap out, they get a bill and pay it.
combine this with some of the dodgy selling done to SME's with ludacris rates, you kind of get the picture.
bigger businesses have people to do admin and work this s
t out, so once again, the poorer end of the market is the one that's screwed over.turbobloke said:
CMD's father-in-law Sir Reginald Sheffield gets £300,000 per year for hosting windymills. Casual redistribution of wealth from pensioners to landowners.
If in the past you've complained to CMD about nonsensical Tory energy/environment policies, with data backing your position, the email with a standard vacuous reply may well have come from Alice Sheffield. That'll be CMD's sister-in-law, paid (from Party funds) to issue manure.
You could, of course, email Nigel Farage, and the vacuous reply will come from his wife, paid (by us) to issue manure.If in the past you've complained to CMD about nonsensical Tory energy/environment policies, with data backing your position, the email with a standard vacuous reply may well have come from Alice Sheffield. That'll be CMD's sister-in-law, paid (from Party funds) to issue manure.
Scuffers said:
do you have an actual example of this to cite?
No? did not think so.
An example of what? That Farage employs his wife (that he admits), that she is on his admin staff (which he admits), that she is paid for by the EU (which he admits)?No? did not think so.
Fanaticals on both sides are sometimes so busy swinging pitchforks they forget that what is sauce for the goose also goes rather well with the gander.
Scuffers said:
allergictocheese said:
You could, of course, email Nigel Farage, and the vacuous reply will come from his wife, paid (by us) to issue manure.
do you have an actual example of this to cite?No? did not think so.
allergictocheese said:
Scuffers said:
do you have an actual example of this to cite?
No? did not think so.
An example of what? That Farage employs his wife (that he admits), that she is on his admin staff (which he admits), that she is paid for by the EU (which he admits)?No? did not think so.
Fanaticals on both sides are sometimes so busy swinging pitchforks they forget that what is sauce for the goose also goes rather well with the gander.
There are some of us who agree with some UKIP policies who haven't voted UKIP so the fanatic smear has a whiff of hypocrisy in view of the 'accidental' misunderstanding.
allergictocheese said:
Scuffers said:
do you have an actual example of this to cite?
No? did not think so.
An example of what? That Farage employs his wife (that he admits), that she is on his admin staff (which he admits), that she is paid for by the EU (which he admits)?No? did not think so.
Fanaticals on both sides are sometimes so busy swinging pitchforks they forget that what is sauce for the goose also goes rather well with the gander.
the 'paid by us' isn't in question, he is an MEP.
NicD said:
allergictocheese said:
Scuffers said:
do you have an actual example of this to cite?
No? did not think so.
An example of what? That Farage employs his wife (that he admits), that she is on his admin staff (which he admits), that she is paid for by the EU (which he admits)?No? did not think so.
Fanaticals on both sides are sometimes so busy swinging pitchforks they forget that what is sauce for the goose also goes rather well with the gander.
the 'paid by us' isn't in question, he is an MEP.
turbobloke said:
Hang on, doesn't that mean they're still killing the climate or the planet or both? Surely this was all done to save bunny rabbits and our children's children? If we don't pay shedloads more tax for politicians to spunk away then the polar bear gets it. Right? People who own and run businesses that reduce their energy taxes will never again sleep at night.
Or, the whole thing is Alice in Wonderland and why bother faffing about just repeal the CCA, it was pointless and still is - except to raise tax on the back of fairytales. Is there a party around that would do that?
No, not at all. Levy Exemption Certificates demonstrate that the electricity you buy comes from low carbon sources. I'm not going to engage in pointless debates with climate change deniers. Or, the whole thing is Alice in Wonderland and why bother faffing about just repeal the CCA, it was pointless and still is - except to raise tax on the back of fairytales. Is there a party around that would do that?
turbobloke said:
Deliberate misunderstanding there? The example referred to is of a complaint (email) and a vacuous reply, not a family member in paid work. Anyone could be forgiven for thinking there was a fanatic at work typing your replies with your PH log-in.
There are some of us who agree with some UKIP policies who haven't voted UKIP so the fanatic smear has a whiff of hypocrisy in view of the 'accidental' misunderstanding.
The inference from your post was that family interests were inappropriately influencing Cameron's decision making. Ignoring for a second that the Prime Minister has his own party, Parliament and the country to answer to before making policy decisions, it is important to bring balance and point out that UKIP are themselves in the habit of employing family members. The difference between your example (as you said it) and mine is that one is funded by a political party and one is funded by us tax payers.There are some of us who agree with some UKIP policies who haven't voted UKIP so the fanatic smear has a whiff of hypocrisy in view of the 'accidental' misunderstanding.
The more people attempt to point out differences between UKIP and the other parties, the clearer it becomes that they're the same.
allergictocheese said:
turbobloke said:
Deliberate misunderstanding there? The example referred to is of a complaint (email) and a vacuous reply, not a family member in paid work. Anyone could be forgiven for thinking there was a fanatic at work typing your replies with your PH log-in.
There are some of us who agree with some UKIP policies who haven't voted UKIP so the fanatic smear has a whiff of hypocrisy in view of the 'accidental' misunderstanding.
The inference from your post was that family interests were inappropriately influencing Cameron's decision making. There are some of us who agree with some UKIP policies who haven't voted UKIP so the fanatic smear has a whiff of hypocrisy in view of the 'accidental' misunderstanding.
The obvious interpretation of my post follow for the self-identified hard of thinking
1) the payment of £300,000 to CMD's FiL who happens to be a rich landowner includes money from the hikes we all face in energy bills that pay for subsidies to unnecessary, costly and ineffective windymills
2) this hike in energy bills has a disproportionate impact on many pensioners, there are pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes adequately, choosing to eat or heat, and in some cases buying large books for 50p from charity shops as cheap fuel to burn
3) when complaining to CMD about the nonsensical nature of Tory Party policy on energy and the environment - which is based around climate fairytales, and results in redistribution of wealth from poor pensioners to rich landowners - a risible reply may well have come from CMD's SiL Alice Sheffield, and I pointed out she was paid from Party funds.
Presumably you're obtuse enough to consider my mention of Alice was because I considered the nature of the reply from her desk was due to her influence on CMD
when she's clearly a button clicking stamp licker (probably not noticing they come with adhesive these days).There was no other inference to be drawn, notwithstanding strenuous efforts to find one as a figleaf for an already-failed contrived posting scenario.
Meahwhile, there was a question somewhere about which if any Party has an energy policy that is a) viable and not based on renewables (shown to be a fail) and b) would put an end to windymill proliferation.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff