Poll: Should this bill be passed into law?
As many are of the opinion, Aye (26)
56.52%
On the contrary, No (17)
36.96%
Abstain (3)
6.52%
This discussion is closed.
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#41
Report 3 years ago
#41
(Original post by Aph)
No you just ignored it.

Again
1) companies over charge via direct debit and then return the money later but they have still overcharged.Then they get fines 10x the amount they overcharge by, and face losing their licences
2) if you state that after 2 years your price will go up then you get round it or; Then there's transparency so the customer knows exactly what they're getting in to, and that's not overcharging.
3) if you are arguing that they will not do thsi that then means you have banned introductory offers which I don't see as a good thing. Introductory offers are irrelevant to this bill. If an Energy company says that they will charge you 'x' then they have to charge you 'x', if they charge 'x+c' then they have overcharged and then face the punishments.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#42
Report 3 years ago
#42
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Ah, so now I see you're yet again lacking research, based on your response to point 2 the problem is, well, tiny, just went and got a quote to do, you know, some research, and what did it tell me, the price was fixed until xx/yy/201z, so hooray, you're now doing nothing. So which do you prefer, doing nothing or penalising the responsible?

I mean seriously, it took the whole of 2 minutes to find that line from opening the tab.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#43
Report 3 years ago
#43
(Original post by James Milibanter)
There shouldn't be a fine for 1) because this means that the companies will then be forced to under charge and customers will then suddenly get shock bills reclaiming the money they didn't pay because of this bill which means that they suddenly won't be able to budget anymore.

So it's simple to get round. And all they need to do it put it on the small print in their TV ads...
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#44
Report 3 years ago
#44
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Why would it? Competition laws would necessitate price cuts, you would merely be using it as an excuse to introduce price caps

Posted from TSR Mobile
Competition law really struggles to regulate pricing issues (as opposed to bundling etc) - and in a saturated, oligopolistic market, tacit collusion is not unlikely.

I'm inclined to say aye, but will leave it a couple of days to see the arguments as I'm not 100% convinced.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#45
Report 3 years ago
#45
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Competition law really struggles to regulate pricing issues (as opposed to bundling etc) - and in a saturated, oligopolistic market, tacit collusion is not unlikely.

I'm inclined to say aye, but will leave it a couple of days to see the arguments as I'm not 100% convinced.
To summarise the arguments

Aye: Average overcharge is £20 per customer, £200 for those who are overcharged

Nay: The proposer also seems to be using a funny definition of overcharging which would make it do very little
Suppose the definition is good, it drives up the bills for others, so those who actually care about their prices and actually look to keep their bills down will be penalised
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#46
Report 3 years ago
#46
Hmmmm. I'm inclined to nay then. I'd rather just see compulsory renationalisation of the energy sector but I'm not sure that could be pushed through.
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#47
Report 3 years ago
#47
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Hmmmm. I'm inclined to nay then. I'd rather just see compulsory renationalisation of the energy sector but I'm not sure that could be pushed through.
The licensing structure of our energy market is something that I'm looking into and researching. Obviously, I don't want to just say we'll renationalise without having a plan of action. The idea I'm looking into is having the state take over the licenses after they run out which would be much cheaper than shoving out the nearly £200bn for the state to buy the shares (especially in the event that we may have a tory government who'd just sell it off at a loss again anyway.

That being said though, simply outlawing the overcharging of customers (i.e 'sticky' customers who are price insensitive that the big six have retained from their time as monopoly suppliers before the energy markets were liberalised) is an effective step to lower bills for people and decrease immoral and unethical business practices. Even if Jammy is right about energy sector profits (I've not seen anything to suggest that he is right though) then it only goes to show that privatisation was a mistake and not viable if the only way for it to work is for the companies to engage in immoral and unethical practices. In any case, we either reform the market for the better, or have an even better case for renationalisation.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#48
Report 3 years ago
#48
(Original post by James Milibanter)
The licensing structure of our energy market is something that I'm looking into and researching. Obviously, I don't want to just say we'll renationalise without having a plan of action. The idea I'm looking into is having the state take over the licenses after they run out which would be much cheaper than shoving out the nearly £200bn for the state to buy the shares (especially in the event that we may have a tory government who'd just sell it off at a loss again anyway.
The way I'd do it is implement suffocating regulations which leave the companies unable to operate at a profit and therefore crash the share price while at the same time creating a state company to ensure service remains undisrupted. I'd then buy up the private companies for a song, making sure that the (unfortunate) right to private property was not infringed upon, and then remove those regulations, and run the state corporation as a profit-making company, using revenue to create subsidies for those worse-off.
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#49
Report 3 years ago
#49
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
The way I'd do it is implement suffocating regulations which leave the companies unable to operate at a profit and therefore crash the share price while at the same time creating a state company to ensure service remains undisrupted. I'd then buy up the private companies for a song, making sure that the (unfortunate) right to private property was not infringed upon, and then remove those regulations, and run the state corporation as a profit-making company, using revenue to create subsidies for those worse-off.
That's certainly one way, probably no chance of it passing this house, but it would do the job.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#50
Report 3 years ago
#50
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
The way I'd do it is implement suffocating regulations which leave the companies unable to operate at a profit and therefore crash the share price while at the same time creating a state company to ensure service remains undisrupted. I'd then buy up the private companies for a song, making sure that the (unfortunate) right to private property was not infringed upon, and then remove those regulations, and run the state corporation as a profit-making company, using revenue to create subsidies for those worse-off.
You do realise that you would instantly lose power if you did that?
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#51
Report 3 years ago
#51
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
You do realise that you would instantly lose power if you did that?
Greater good. It wouldn't last long.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#52
Report 3 years ago
#52
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Greater good. It wouldn't last long.
You would be forced out of power and the damage reversed to bring the lights back on, would also destroy the chances of being elected for quite some time.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#53
Report 3 years ago
#53
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
You would be forced out of power and the damage reversed to bring the lights back on, would also destroy the chances of being elected for quite some time.
You honestly think I intend to rule in a democracy?
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#54
Report 3 years ago
#54
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
You honestly think I intend to rule in a democracy?
You think you can only be forced out of power if it is a democracy?
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#55
Report 3 years ago
#55
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
You think you can only be forced out of power if it is a democracy?
People are much more likely to put up with no power for a few days - tops - than institute a violent revolution.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#56
Report 3 years ago
#56
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
People are much more likely to put up with no power for a few days - tops - than institute a violent revolution.
A few days will mean a lot more than a few days.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#57
Report 3 years ago
#57
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
A few days will mean a lot more than a few days.
Nah. All the big 6 energy companies are plcs. The fragmented nature of their shareholding will result in a mass exodus of individual shareholders who cannot hold each other to account, and they'll crash extremely quickly.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#58
Report 3 years ago
#58
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Nah. All the big 6 energy companies are plcs. The fragmented nature of their shareholding will result in a mass exodus of individual shareholders who cannot hold each other to account, and they'll crash extremely quickly.
The power remains off thereafter, anybody with a bit of money and a brain, two things that will be lacking if you took power, so I suppose that would be a non-issue, would then be buying it all up knowing that they're in to make a pretty penny.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#59
Report 3 years ago
#59
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The power remains off thereafter, anybody with a bit of money and a brain, two things that will be lacking if you took power, so I suppose that would be a non-issue, would then be buying it all up knowing that they're in to make a pretty penny.
Doesn't seem too difficult to legislate around.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#60
Report 3 years ago
#60
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Doesn't seem too difficult to legislate around.
At which point your socialist utopia may as well simply resort to theft, since there is clearly no possibility of an uprising, and everybody is clearly perfectly happy to hand everything over, your methods seems long winded and convoluted, just nick it all, it's yours anyway, right?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Which party will you be voting for in the General Election?

Conservatives (16)
16.16%
Labour (41)
41.41%
Liberal Democrats (18)
18.18%
Green Party (5)
5.05%
Brexit Party (3)
3.03%
Independent Group for Change (Change UK) (0)
0%
SNP (2)
2.02%
Plaid Cymru (2)
2.02%
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) (0)
0%
Sinn Fein (0)
0%
SDLP (0)
0%
Ulster Unionist (0)
0%
UKIP (1)
1.01%
Other (2)
2.02%
None (9)
9.09%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise