It reminded me of snatch where the dog goes mental and just starts biting everyone.So funny.
I just love the fact that the dog ended up attacking it's owner more than the other guy.
"That's for making me wear this stupid sign!"
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
It reminded me of snatch where the dog goes mental and just starts biting everyone.So funny.
I just love the fact that the dog ended up attacking it's owner more than the other guy.
"That's for making me wear this stupid sign!"
CyclopsRock
Member
I think the dog was just thinking "YEah man jumping around man I love jumping GUYS WHATS GOING ON hey guys guys what's going on i love jumping wooo!"
CyclopsRock
Member
So, Miliband is bringing sexy socialism back (yeah!).
What do we think about a) how effective it'll be to help fix the country and b) how it'll play with the electorate?
What do we think about a) how effective it'll be to help fix the country and b) how it'll play with the electorate?
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
It is better than being Tony Blair/New Labour, that is for sure. The Lib Dems and Conservatives have that locked down. I don't know if it will be electorally popular - I'm not sure it will make too much of a difference, bar giving the party some kind of identity. I for one am glad that it happened. Not just because I am more left wing than NL/LD/Con but because it actually gives some element of choice, which is good for everyone.
Energy price freezes should be extremely popular. Repealing the 'bedroom tax' will appeal to Lib Dem types and people opposed to this idea wouldn't have voted Labour anyway. Increased taxes on big business counterbalanced by tax cuts on small businesses should be popular too (and is the right thing to do, in general at least). I'm less certain on the housebuilding approach. More houses is a necessity and should be popular outside of the home counties(I am a hypocrite, I am involved in petitions against house building in my village, though in fairness this is not where new houses are needed), though I am less certain about the means in which they plan to do it.
In general it was a good approach because it actually laid out what Labour now stands for. Plus it seems to be the final nail in New Labour's coffin. Which everyone can celebrate.
Energy price freezes should be extremely popular. Repealing the 'bedroom tax' will appeal to Lib Dem types and people opposed to this idea wouldn't have voted Labour anyway. Increased taxes on big business counterbalanced by tax cuts on small businesses should be popular too (and is the right thing to do, in general at least). I'm less certain on the housebuilding approach. More houses is a necessity and should be popular outside of the home counties(I am a hypocrite, I am involved in petitions against house building in my village, though in fairness this is not where new houses are needed), though I am less certain about the means in which they plan to do it.
In general it was a good approach because it actually laid out what Labour now stands for. Plus it seems to be the final nail in New Labour's coffin. Which everyone can celebrate.
I don't see Ed as a leader, and that faded One Nation flag looks like it's only concerned with England.
Queen ft. Ed Miliband - One Nation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4vII3nangc&sns=tw
Queen ft. Ed Miliband - One Nation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4vII3nangc&sns=tw
Nicktendo86
Member
It probably will be, but it is complete and utter nonsense. Energy prices are very much dependant on the global market and we actually pay LESS than most in western Europe! Besides, if this is such a good idea why didn't Labour implement it when they were in power instead of the massive hikes in prices due to their green energy taxes?
Typical Labour, gimmick of a policy to buy votes.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Energy price controls. Insane.
California just tried this and it resulted in rolling blackouts.
Why would an energy company bother to supply energy they buy from the wholesale market at a higher price than the price ceiling? What then does the government do, subsidise the very companies they said are profiteering? Nationalise the industry?
Absolutely insane policy. We already have the fourth lowest consumer electricity prices in Europe and the lowest gas prices in Europe. I understand that absolute prices are high but when the wholesale price is rising very little can be done about it.
I just hope that the public has a sense that something which looks too good to be true probably is.
What's worse is that over the next 10 years the country needs the private sector to invest £60-70bn in new power plants and infrastructure, I don't see where the money is going to come from. Part of the problem is that a new gas fired power plant is 8x more expensive than the cost of construction because of all the carbon tax levies applied. Those levies exist to incentivise building of renewable plants such as wind and tidal but so far the £10bn invested in that sector has amounted to less than 5% of total energy output.
As for the land theft policies, it makes little sense, the LGA study from 2011 showed just 75k out of 400k applications for housebuilding being sat on.
California just tried this and it resulted in rolling blackouts.
Why would an energy company bother to supply energy they buy from the wholesale market at a higher price than the price ceiling? What then does the government do, subsidise the very companies they said are profiteering? Nationalise the industry?
Absolutely insane policy. We already have the fourth lowest consumer electricity prices in Europe and the lowest gas prices in Europe. I understand that absolute prices are high but when the wholesale price is rising very little can be done about it.
I just hope that the public has a sense that something which looks too good to be true probably is.
What's worse is that over the next 10 years the country needs the private sector to invest £60-70bn in new power plants and infrastructure, I don't see where the money is going to come from. Part of the problem is that a new gas fired power plant is 8x more expensive than the cost of construction because of all the carbon tax levies applied. Those levies exist to incentivise building of renewable plants such as wind and tidal but so far the £10bn invested in that sector has amounted to less than 5% of total energy output.
As for the land theft policies, it makes little sense, the LGA study from 2011 showed just 75k out of 400k applications for housebuilding being sat on.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Agreed. I don't think the energy market functions effectively as a private market at all. While energy companies have eased up the means to switch providers, it just isn't practical or feasible for most people to constantly keep monitoring and switching.
Same with trains. Or rather, the rail infrastructure we currently have doesn't work as a private market in many regions.
Nicktendo86
Member
No, it hasn't. As ZOMG said above, we pay the lowest in Europe for our gas and fourth lowest for all energy, one of the reasons we pay as much as we do it because of Labour's green energy taxes. We don't need nationalisation, we need a stronger regulator and for it to be easier to switch suppliers to keep competition more fierce. Milliband's policy is utter bollocks.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Rail infrastructure is a nationalised industry (Network Rail).
Again, we have the lowest consumer gas prices in Europe and the fourth lowest consumer electricity prices in Europe, tell me exactly why and how our energy market doesn't work. I know it's an easy thing to look at energy company profits and say they are making too much money and that it means we are paying too much for energy, but the reality is that we have among the lowest prices in Europe, and if the government moved to remove the green subsidies it would lower consumer prices to the lowest in Europe by some distance.
I'm an advocate of paying for green investment/subsidies via general taxation rather than lumping them on energy bills because it punishes the poor. The average subsidy is about £200 per year and everyone has to pay that, regardless of income. £200 means a lot more to someone on low income or lives on the state pension than to me. However, changing that subsidy would be difficult to do as right now the energy companies get the blame for high bills and it keeps the government out of the line of fire.
CyclopsRock
Member
This is the biggest thing for me. Energy companies will only invest what's needed if they see a profit. Taking the profit away from them might be great in theory but not when we need someone to stump up that £70bn. As you said, such a huge proportion of a) the cost of building the power stations and b) the non-raw cost of the actual retail price of energy comes from the governments own tariffs that the idea that nationalising it will cheapen it seems pretty naive, when you add in all the usual political funk that comes along with nationalised industries.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Well, the very opening part of Miliband's speech was meh. I like the guy, I think he has good ideas and he's surprisingly personable on the right topics, but humour is not one of those topics. I don't know why he feels compelled to start with a long joke every speech, it's not working.
After that, he began to pick up about. His speech making ability is definitely improving. "Britain can do better than this!" isn't that bad a logo. I'm not much of a fan of sound-bite politics, but I recognise this is probably a fairly effective sound-bite because it's more positively than negatively focused - no matter how well the Coalition does, Labour can always say "well, we'd do better", whereas if Miliband had used something more negative like "Britain is on its knees" or whatever (that was off the top of my head, don't give me that look) then he'd be in more trouble if the economy starts picking up in a serious way.
The living standards/divided nation is probably the right one to take, I feel. Pretty much all the current effects of the recovery are being felt in the Home Counties/London. Here in Wales, things are still fairly grim, there's not really much tangible difference on a few years ago. Obviously, a One Nation campaign isn't going to win in the Home Counties like Blair was capable of, but I think it'll play surprisingly well in the Midlands where the key electoral battle-grounds are and should help cement the advantage there that Ashcroft's marginal poll showed Labour holding.
That said, it doesn't seem to be dramatically coherent yet. A better identification of precisely why this "two nation" dynamic has emerged, and thus a holistic way of dealing with it as a problem wasn't really presented. Instead he moved on to the Murdoch issue again. It's a nice reminder of how Miliband has actually had the largest tangible achievement of any Leader of the Opposition outside government in the last few decades, and something that often gets played down, but I feel that's something that could have been left to electoral henchmen, so to speak. He's here to lead, I want to hear where he's going to take us, not where we've already been taken to. Same issue with the "I stopped the war" business. Yes, Miliband played a large part in preventing U.K. involvement in Syria, but that's not really constructive material for what he'd do in office.
A bit of the ole Clegg routine with the "hey, I'm normal like you, not contemptuous (implicit Conservative tarring) and not snooty (implicit Conservative tarring)". I suppose he has to do it, but again, boring, and also even less useful than the prior two claims, because at least they can actually be concreted to real events. This bit of the speech was straight up politico stuff, rather dull. Similarly, some anti-terrorism stuff. Nothing concrete, just "hey, I like policemen and soldiers, they do good stuff. Aren't I a nice guy?".
Very nice dodge around Brown's infamous bigot issue with the story of the anti-immigrant guy who "wasn't prejudiced". Good way of navigating what is for Labour a very touchy issue. In fact, this whole part was quite a clever way of encapsulating what Labour should be doing: recasting the myth of the benefit scrounger, etc., as people who are doing their best but don't have the community and support they need. I think this is vital even if isn't directly constructive because Labour needs to sell a story to win the next election, and at the moment the Conservative story is absolutely dominant in terms of media coverage. In contrast, Labour didn't really seem to be clear on their line, but I feel this is a step forward. Miliband really needs to take this "ordinary people doing their best" line further, push empathy against the Conservative austerity.
First actual decent joke of the day with "rising tide lifting all the yachts." Elicited a small chuckle from me, much better than that ridiculously long shaggy dog story at the start. Shame he follows it up with pantomime "do the Tories get it?" stuff, especially when immediately after he recognises that people did (and to some extent) still do think the Conservatives understood and understand the issue. This shouldn't have been a joke-y issue, it should have been a serious engagement with why people wanted to vote Conservative. Missed opportunity here, which is a big shame. Instead, he backs off to familiar living-standards territory, which is good but still lacking in any coherence.
Finally touches on the wage/price inflation disparity. Now, we get some really good stuff about Britain's place in a global market. What's even better is that this time, there is a coherent identification of the issue with the problem (i.e., how we're try to win by reducing the cost of our labour market, rather than increasing productivity or attempting to occupy specialist markets).
Spent too much time hammering Lord Howe. It was a gaffe, sure, but on a factual, substantive level I don't think it's unfair to say that the North-East has a lower population density than some other regions. Heck, I live in Wales and I'd be the first to say that the North Wales is fairly desolate. I like it, it's beautiful, and it doesn't have to be an insult. It also seemed a useless aside when Miliband goes on to talking about global competitiveness again.
Tactical batting at the Greens' wicket now with some environment talk. POLICY ALERT for the first time with Labour's carbon targets and eco-jobs. Admittedly, no actual explanation but that's fine for now, this is conference speech and not a manifesto costing/review. Policies again with cutting business rates on smaller businesses while raising on higher. This is nice stuff. Both are sensible policies that'll play well with potential Labour voters. As long as they're followed up a more detailed explanation closer to the election, this is good going and should help dispel the "Labour has no policies thing". Apprenticeships stuff should go down well. Correctly identifies the problem of free-riding on employee-training - the company my dad works for has a huge problem with that and I know it's a big issue for a lot of his industry. This 10-minute section was really good, Miliband batting well here. The only real problem is that there was no more coherent backbone, leaving this feeling a little like a "shopping list" of policies, rather than unified theme.
Anecdote with at least a reasonable joke about being Labour party leader, again elicited a small chuckle, but I was more comfortable when he started talking about child care and schools again. This was fairly brief, which was disappointing because Gove is eminently attackable and it's very disappointing to see Twigg mangling his brief with utterly ineffectual Opposition speeches. I feel Labour could be doing much more on the issue of education.
Living wage is good, an early policy, nice to know it's still going strong. Tiny bit old hat, though, so it was encouraging to see it was followed by some stuff about immigration. This is dangerous territory for Labour, dangerous territory. Miliband taking what I think is the right line here - not being the party that shuts out immigration, but the party that seeks to ensure a regulated immigration. This line needs much more explanation, though, as it is most definitely a tightrope act. Definitely has potential to go wrong if "the party that seeks to ensure a regulated immigration" becomes "the party that fails at ensuring a regulated immigration", which doesn't seem unlikely. Again, Miliband has identified the issues and probably the correct path, but there just needs to be more substance and more coherence.
Will listen to the rest later and give an overall comment, but have stuff to do now.
After that, he began to pick up about. His speech making ability is definitely improving. "Britain can do better than this!" isn't that bad a logo. I'm not much of a fan of sound-bite politics, but I recognise this is probably a fairly effective sound-bite because it's more positively than negatively focused - no matter how well the Coalition does, Labour can always say "well, we'd do better", whereas if Miliband had used something more negative like "Britain is on its knees" or whatever (that was off the top of my head, don't give me that look) then he'd be in more trouble if the economy starts picking up in a serious way.
The living standards/divided nation is probably the right one to take, I feel. Pretty much all the current effects of the recovery are being felt in the Home Counties/London. Here in Wales, things are still fairly grim, there's not really much tangible difference on a few years ago. Obviously, a One Nation campaign isn't going to win in the Home Counties like Blair was capable of, but I think it'll play surprisingly well in the Midlands where the key electoral battle-grounds are and should help cement the advantage there that Ashcroft's marginal poll showed Labour holding.
That said, it doesn't seem to be dramatically coherent yet. A better identification of precisely why this "two nation" dynamic has emerged, and thus a holistic way of dealing with it as a problem wasn't really presented. Instead he moved on to the Murdoch issue again. It's a nice reminder of how Miliband has actually had the largest tangible achievement of any Leader of the Opposition outside government in the last few decades, and something that often gets played down, but I feel that's something that could have been left to electoral henchmen, so to speak. He's here to lead, I want to hear where he's going to take us, not where we've already been taken to. Same issue with the "I stopped the war" business. Yes, Miliband played a large part in preventing U.K. involvement in Syria, but that's not really constructive material for what he'd do in office.
A bit of the ole Clegg routine with the "hey, I'm normal like you, not contemptuous (implicit Conservative tarring) and not snooty (implicit Conservative tarring)". I suppose he has to do it, but again, boring, and also even less useful than the prior two claims, because at least they can actually be concreted to real events. This bit of the speech was straight up politico stuff, rather dull. Similarly, some anti-terrorism stuff. Nothing concrete, just "hey, I like policemen and soldiers, they do good stuff. Aren't I a nice guy?".
Very nice dodge around Brown's infamous bigot issue with the story of the anti-immigrant guy who "wasn't prejudiced". Good way of navigating what is for Labour a very touchy issue. In fact, this whole part was quite a clever way of encapsulating what Labour should be doing: recasting the myth of the benefit scrounger, etc., as people who are doing their best but don't have the community and support they need. I think this is vital even if isn't directly constructive because Labour needs to sell a story to win the next election, and at the moment the Conservative story is absolutely dominant in terms of media coverage. In contrast, Labour didn't really seem to be clear on their line, but I feel this is a step forward. Miliband really needs to take this "ordinary people doing their best" line further, push empathy against the Conservative austerity.
First actual decent joke of the day with "rising tide lifting all the yachts." Elicited a small chuckle from me, much better than that ridiculously long shaggy dog story at the start. Shame he follows it up with pantomime "do the Tories get it?" stuff, especially when immediately after he recognises that people did (and to some extent) still do think the Conservatives understood and understand the issue. This shouldn't have been a joke-y issue, it should have been a serious engagement with why people wanted to vote Conservative. Missed opportunity here, which is a big shame. Instead, he backs off to familiar living-standards territory, which is good but still lacking in any coherence.
Finally touches on the wage/price inflation disparity. Now, we get some really good stuff about Britain's place in a global market. What's even better is that this time, there is a coherent identification of the issue with the problem (i.e., how we're try to win by reducing the cost of our labour market, rather than increasing productivity or attempting to occupy specialist markets).
Spent too much time hammering Lord Howe. It was a gaffe, sure, but on a factual, substantive level I don't think it's unfair to say that the North-East has a lower population density than some other regions. Heck, I live in Wales and I'd be the first to say that the North Wales is fairly desolate. I like it, it's beautiful, and it doesn't have to be an insult. It also seemed a useless aside when Miliband goes on to talking about global competitiveness again.
Tactical batting at the Greens' wicket now with some environment talk. POLICY ALERT for the first time with Labour's carbon targets and eco-jobs. Admittedly, no actual explanation but that's fine for now, this is conference speech and not a manifesto costing/review. Policies again with cutting business rates on smaller businesses while raising on higher. This is nice stuff. Both are sensible policies that'll play well with potential Labour voters. As long as they're followed up a more detailed explanation closer to the election, this is good going and should help dispel the "Labour has no policies thing". Apprenticeships stuff should go down well. Correctly identifies the problem of free-riding on employee-training - the company my dad works for has a huge problem with that and I know it's a big issue for a lot of his industry. This 10-minute section was really good, Miliband batting well here. The only real problem is that there was no more coherent backbone, leaving this feeling a little like a "shopping list" of policies, rather than unified theme.
Anecdote with at least a reasonable joke about being Labour party leader, again elicited a small chuckle, but I was more comfortable when he started talking about child care and schools again. This was fairly brief, which was disappointing because Gove is eminently attackable and it's very disappointing to see Twigg mangling his brief with utterly ineffectual Opposition speeches. I feel Labour could be doing much more on the issue of education.
Living wage is good, an early policy, nice to know it's still going strong. Tiny bit old hat, though, so it was encouraging to see it was followed by some stuff about immigration. This is dangerous territory for Labour, dangerous territory. Miliband taking what I think is the right line here - not being the party that shuts out immigration, but the party that seeks to ensure a regulated immigration. This line needs much more explanation, though, as it is most definitely a tightrope act. Definitely has potential to go wrong if "the party that seeks to ensure a regulated immigration" becomes "the party that fails at ensuring a regulated immigration", which doesn't seem unlikely. Again, Miliband has identified the issues and probably the correct path, but there just needs to be more substance and more coherence.
Will listen to the rest later and give an overall comment, but have stuff to do now.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Not exactly, Network Rail is a private company, but in practice you are correct. However I meant rail operators rather than infrastructre, that was poorly worded on my part. What you get for typing in breaks between proof reading... Anyway, the point is that unlike in, for example Japan, there isn't competition amongst the franchises, especially in more rural areas, the cost of subsidy(relative to pre-privatised costs) has risen without sufficient investment while the profits remain private. there have been improvements over the last 15 years in my experience but not relative to the ever-increasing prices. Not to mention, a nationalised network still would have seen improvements over the last decade due to technological developments alone. Private rail would be fine if it operated in a private market where franchises could compete.
Just because it is more expensive elsewhere doesn't mean that it is functioning effectively. It just means that we have done a better job at regulating/pressuring the market, or perhaps other geographic/company differences versus the rest of Europe. Personally I see it as less an economic issue and more a democratic issue. Yes, the energy companies could ramp up their prices before a potential Labour Government but that will only make such policies even more popular. They aren't going to go away either - there is still loads of money to be made here. I think the threat could force them to become more consumer friendly, which can only be a good thing. If not, I hope the government do their worst on the bastards.
I don't think price controls will actually occur for what its worth, but if it forces these big oligopolies to act more responsibly towards consumers then that is a substantial improvement over the last two decades where big companies in various markets have threatened governments over regulation, etc. Shifting the balance of power is very important.
I agree on the green subsidies, by the way. That would be a neater way of shifting the burden from the poor.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
This argument would hold true if and only if the price ceiling a Labour administration applied was lower than the wholesale market price. As it is, over the last 3 months of 2013 the peak wholesale electricity price in the U.K. markets was £108 per MWh [see: Exelon's market reports], whereas the best retail price for a medium-house attempting to use energy conserving measures over the same period was £141 per MWh [see: npower]. While I can't find a citation and I'll do my best to find one, I'm sure there is a report out there which was highlighted on the BBC lately reporting that wholesale prices are responsible for, on average, just over two-thirds of retail prices (my example was of the wholesale price comprising 76%, which doesn't seem too far from that conclusion). That difference, combined with the cumulative profit reports of the Big 6 major energy companies standing at over £3bn [see: Ofgem profit report], implies there is at least a strong case for there being a potential retail price somewhat less than the current retail price still remaining profitable. If it is possible to correctly identify this lower retail price and respond adequately to fluctuations in it (this being the more challenging part, I suspect), then the government will be capable of lowering retail prices without eliminating profits.
EDIT: vcassano has also correctly pointed out the fact we are doing well in comparison to other countries doesn't preclude us from doing better.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Unbelievable. I was going to vote green/libdem, but I might have to vote tory just to do my bit to stop miliband getting in.
What planet is he on that he thinks a price freeze is the way to solve our dire energy problems. I mean the tory proposals are garbage too, but at least they aren't going to actively make things worse.
What planet is he on that he thinks a price freeze is the way to solve our dire energy problems. I mean the tory proposals are garbage too, but at least they aren't going to actively make things worse.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
What are our dire energy problems? How will they make it worse?
You know, I should put this behind a link to avoid making anyone sick. It's the Game of Thrones themed cover of this week's New Statesmen.
http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/images/2013+39.jpg
http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/images/2013+39.jpg
CyclopsRock
Member
We should do this for all products where companies make profit. I mean, what's the intellectual reason for only extending this sort of activity to the rather arbitrary target of energy generation and distribution?
Sir_Crocodile
Member
That we don't have capacity and enough isn't being planned or built.
Private Eye has been covering this pretty well for a number of years. If miliband does this, the private sector are far less likely to pony up a decent amount of cash, and there would have to be a much bigger public subsidy to get anything built, so tax payers would suffer in the end anyway.
The tories had problems getting anyone on board with a new nuclear powerstation as it is (they haven't treated this issue nearly seriously enough), but if miliband gets in and does the freeze things would be even worse. It's bad enough as it is as it will create uncertainty right now, as labour are ahead in the opinion polls so their announcements have to be taken seriously.
CyclopsRock
Member
Powerstations are the archetypal infrastructural nightmares. They aren't sexy, they have connotations of spewing out black smoke and giving everyone cancer, they cost a lot and they take so long to build that basically any government that gives them the nod has to pay at least something towards them, but will likely not be in power to "reap the benefits", especially when the benefits are basically just "the power staying on". As such, it's not hard to see why everyone just kicks it into the tall grass BUT that is why it's so vital to get the private sector on board, have them do as much of the heavy lifting as possible because they don't care about political terms and elections, just securing their future.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Lack of information and marginal effectiveness, for the most part. Some markets have a sufficient number of competing entities at both the supply and demand ends of the market to render the attempts of a centralized body to set a specific price futile. A body like the government can only really have any great success at setting prices in strongly oligopolistic and monopolistic markets, where the number of variables is contained. The energy market is (arguably) an example of one of these markets, where there are 6 main retailers and a single main wholesale market. After the question of "is it possible", follows the question "should we do it?": the cost of setting up a government branch whose remit was to study the accounts of the various firms in a market and determine whether a price could be raised or lowered might actually exceed the benefits of reduced prices for consumers, in terms of the increased taxation. Once you've precluded all markets that fall under one of the two earlier categories, you're essentially left with the group of strongly oligopolistic and monopolistic/monopsonistic firms which supply necessities as opposed to luxuries. That's not a particularly large group, and essentially covers energy companies, water companies, certain forms of travel, specific areas of the housing market, specific areas of the medical market in countries which don't provide free healthcare access to essential services, and the primary/secondary education market in nations that don't provide free primary and secondary education.
Also, generally speaking, it's a method which shouldn't be necessary in the first place. If there are very large profits being made in an industry which is not particularly new, then something is not right and that market is not operating under competitive conditions. Rather hitting the end result of the problem (prices are not allocatively efficient), a better method is hitting the start of the problem (this market is not operating properly). The energy market, because of the extremely high infrastructural barriers to entry, is never really going to operate under competitive conditions - it's a natural oligopoly at best. That means, regrettably, simply trying to make the market work by itself isn't going to work.
EDIT: Galbraith's classic 1952 work A Theory of Price Controls makes excellent reading for those with little-to-no economic background, despite the dry title it's very easy going and he's an excellent writer. If you're looking for something more technical, basically any paper on specifically monopsony markets and price controls would make for an interesting read - for a specialised example, the effects of the minimum wage in monopsonistic labour markets can be surprising.
CyclopsRock
Member
There's still a huge grey area of "arbitraryness" there, though. You say they have very large profits, but the total profits of all the big six combined is approximately 10% of Apple's annual profit, which operates (admittedly globally) in several markets, all of which are very competitive. My point isn't that Apple's profitsare ridiculously high or the energy companies low, simply that having high profit doesn't mean there's no effective competition. Sky has approximately double the profits of any of the energy companies, with plenty of competition from Virgin, Freeview and terrestrial TV and various broadband suppliers. How are you defining "very large profits"? You also say "not particularly new" but I think perhaps what you really mean is "static" - after all, the age of the industry doesn't matter if its nature is constantly changing. Going back to Mobile phones again, that's a market that's been effectively operating for over 30 years but it got completely turned on its head 6 or so years ago. Obviously this level of competition doesn't happen in the energy sector, but nor is it static - different countries develop new methods of energy extraction. The US is now almost energy independent after decades of having their financial fortunes partly defined by OPEC. The big 6 haven't simply been operating in a vacuum, and this is also true when it comes to expecting them to invest in infrastructure.
It's true, though, that it's always going to be difficult to compete properly, but - as you said yourself, after finding out if it's possible, you need to ask if you should. Well, is there a reason to think think that these companies could afford to make less profit and still work? These companies make an average of about £500m a year - personally I don't think that's all that much for companies that have approximately 10 million customers each (last year Royal Mail made profit of about £400m last year, and their costs to customers have continued to go up and up) - but we're also asking them to invest about £12bn each in infrastructure in the coming years. Even at today's profit levels, That would take them 25 years of profits to accrue even without giving anything to their shareholders. So if we effectively reduce that profit, it's going to take even longer as well as removing their incentive to even bother. Then it's up to HM Government to pay for it.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
http://www.energy.eu/
Cost of electricity in Euros per kWh:
Cost of natural gas in Euros per kWh:
Please can someone give some specifics of where our energy markets are going wrong? All I've heard from Labour is that they are, without any specifics. I took out all of the Eastern European countries because the GDP per capita is not comparable and there is no data for Finnish gas prices.
Honestly, I fail to see what the problem is. People say "we can do better" well I would like to see how, and unless, like me, the nation is ready to frack large parts of the North East and South then I don't see how these prices will come down.
I saw the comparison between wholesale price and retail price. About 80% of UK energy is obtained from the wholesale market these days. In that 110 to 140 rise, the energy company needs to pay the wages of all it's employees, invest in keeping what we have online and invest in new generation facilities as well as paying tax. Some may say that they profit too much and invest too little, but right now because of government policy (introduced by Ed Miliband and carried forward by this government) it is uneconomic to invest in anything but offshore wind, which is not very productive. If the markets weren't fixed in favour of "green" investment then something might change and they might unleash their cash, but for now government policy is not favourable to investment in energy production.
Let's say for a minute that Labour win and Ed puts this freeze in place, I don't see what motivation these companies will have to invest any of their money in new power generation. So we have a barely working system as it is, now crippled by chronic underinvestment. How does the government react, by taking the companies into public ownership? Fine. Now that doesn't remove the need to invest £7-8bn per year to keep the lights on, it just means that the money will be coming from taxes rather than from the private sector. Even then, if the wholesale price of energy rises to a level higher than the price cap, what is the solution, will the government have general subsidies for energy (which is probably illegal under EU law)? None of this makes a lick of sense.
If someone can actually come up with a way to improve the energy markets in the UK then that's fine, but for now we have the lowest energy costs among comparable nations other than the US which has undergone a massive shale gas boom with no means of export until 2015.
The improvements I can think of would be to move the green subsidies off the energy bills, either by getting rid of them or by paying for them out of general taxation. That takes £250 per year (it's more than I thought) off the average bill. Another one would be to reduce or completely get rid of feed-in tariffs. Not very green, but those two moves would bring the cost of a household energy bill down from £1200 to ~£700 overnight. Notice that the two countries which have the least in the way of green taxes (the UK and France) also have the cheapest consumer electricity and gas prices.
Cost of electricity in Euros per kWh:
Code:
Denmark 0.295250
Germany 0.265270
Italy 0.231400
Belgium 0.225660
Ireland 0.225180
Sweden 0.203610
Portugal 0.203100
Austria 0.201470
Netherlands 0.193230
Spain 0.189260
United Kingdom 0.170780
Luxembourg 0.167360
Finland 0.157180
France 0.144660Cost of natural gas in Euros per kWh:
Code:
Sweden 0.11523
Denmark 0.108050
Italy 0.079320
Netherlands 0.07374
Portugal 0.06841
Austria 0.066910
Belgium 0.063620
Spain 0.06141
Germany 0.061390
Ireland 0.058270
France 0.057060
Luxembourg 0.05637
United Kingdom 0.0445Please can someone give some specifics of where our energy markets are going wrong? All I've heard from Labour is that they are, without any specifics. I took out all of the Eastern European countries because the GDP per capita is not comparable and there is no data for Finnish gas prices.
Honestly, I fail to see what the problem is. People say "we can do better" well I would like to see how, and unless, like me, the nation is ready to frack large parts of the North East and South then I don't see how these prices will come down.
I saw the comparison between wholesale price and retail price. About 80% of UK energy is obtained from the wholesale market these days. In that 110 to 140 rise, the energy company needs to pay the wages of all it's employees, invest in keeping what we have online and invest in new generation facilities as well as paying tax. Some may say that they profit too much and invest too little, but right now because of government policy (introduced by Ed Miliband and carried forward by this government) it is uneconomic to invest in anything but offshore wind, which is not very productive. If the markets weren't fixed in favour of "green" investment then something might change and they might unleash their cash, but for now government policy is not favourable to investment in energy production.
Let's say for a minute that Labour win and Ed puts this freeze in place, I don't see what motivation these companies will have to invest any of their money in new power generation. So we have a barely working system as it is, now crippled by chronic underinvestment. How does the government react, by taking the companies into public ownership? Fine. Now that doesn't remove the need to invest £7-8bn per year to keep the lights on, it just means that the money will be coming from taxes rather than from the private sector. Even then, if the wholesale price of energy rises to a level higher than the price cap, what is the solution, will the government have general subsidies for energy (which is probably illegal under EU law)? None of this makes a lick of sense.
If someone can actually come up with a way to improve the energy markets in the UK then that's fine, but for now we have the lowest energy costs among comparable nations other than the US which has undergone a massive shale gas boom with no means of export until 2015.
The improvements I can think of would be to move the green subsidies off the energy bills, either by getting rid of them or by paying for them out of general taxation. That takes £250 per year (it's more than I thought) off the average bill. Another one would be to reduce or completely get rid of feed-in tariffs. Not very green, but those two moves would bring the cost of a household energy bill down from £1200 to ~£700 overnight. Notice that the two countries which have the least in the way of green taxes (the UK and France) also have the cheapest consumer electricity and gas prices.
Nicktendo86
Member
Great post zomg.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I agree with some of these points, with a few points of disagreement. The first would be that the smartphone manufacturer market simply isn't that competitive. There has been a noticeable entrenchment around Samsung and Apple to the point that the two between them control over 50% of the worldwide market in terms of units, with most analysts predicting that their position is simply going to become entrenched. This is even worse when the fact that this is the worldwide market is considered - in developed markets, Samsung and Apple hold even more dominant positions. The smartphone industry has huge barriers to entry, particularly legal ones. While Samsung and Apples have some competition from each other, it's not particularly large or they wouldn't have high profits. The same is true for Sky.
As a rough explanation: in the face of perfect competition, if any one firm has a price higher than any other firm, then nobody will buy from that firm, given they are capable of getting it for a lower price elsewhere, and that firm will go bust. If any firm sets a price lower than the price it costs to produce and provide for sale, then they will not be able to stay in business, and will thus go bust. There is exactly one price at which a firm will not go bust: the price at which the cost of production is equal to the cost of sale (the break-even point). At this point, no profit is made (conversely, there are no losses, either).
Clearly this is a basic model and there are various things which change how it functions (brand loyalty, product differentiation, consumer irrationality, information asynchronicity, etc.), but generally speaking, if there are particularly large profits to be found in a stable market in the long-run, that market is not competitive.
To sum up the above, high profits generally indicate a non-competitive market.
Your second point is the arbitrariness of when profits are "high" and when they are acceptable. Even assuming that Apple and the Big 6 energy companies were equally competitive, Apple would generate more profits, yes, as it occupies a larger market. This is where the concept of a consumer and producer surplus comes in. Say we have some price. As well as the actual price at which a good is sold, we have two other things to keep an eye on. The first is the consumer reservation price. This is the absolute maximum a consumer would be willing to pay for a product. I'd be willing to pay up to, say, £60 to purchase Europa Universalis 4. At that price, I'd be willing to buy it. Any higher, and I wouldn't. As it was, I paid £35 (I think). My consumer surplus was £25 - the difference between what I was willing to pay and what I have paid. Conversely, there will be a producer reservation price: the difference between what a business is willing to sell a good for, and what they actually sell a good for. Paradox Studios would be willing to sell me Europa Universalis 4 for £15 (random number). As it is, I purchased it for £35. Their producer surplus was £20 - the difference between what they sold it for, and what they would have sold it for.
I hope you can see that these two concepts are zero-sum entities. If you increase the price, the consumer surplus will decrease by the same amount that the producer surplus increased. Now, the producer reservation price (the minimum they are willing to sell a good for) is the same as the cost of production. If they sold it for less than the cost of production, then they would be making a loss and would go out of business, so going lower than that is simply not acceptable. That means that the producer surplus is not only the difference between what they're willing to sell for and what they get, it's also the difference between the cost of production and the price at sale - that is, profit.
That tells you that profit and consumer surplus are two zero sum entities - as you increase profits, you reduce the difference between what consumers are willing to pay and what they do pay. Eventually, when consumers are charged exactly the maximum they're willing to pay, consumer surplus will be 0, and profits will have reached their greatest possible extent. We'll call profits at this point maximum potential profits.
This then gives us a handy way of determining what "large" profits are, relative the sizes of the markets involved. You could say that profits are high when they exceed 60% of the maximum potential profit. Now there are just two concerns - what percentage do we say that "high" profits are, and how do we measure what maximum potential profits are? The first is not a science, really. I think we can probably all agree that certain values are (say, 100%), so it's just a matter of finding a value people are willing to tolerate. Provided that the energy companies are capable of sustaining lower profits, I'd say the general opinion is that their profit margins exceed the level of profit for their market that we as a society are willing to accept (otherwise there probably wouldn't be this fuss in the first place). The second is the reason why I said earlier this can't be done in just any markets. It needs to be done in one with a relatively small number of variables that allow the government to keep track of such data. Thankfully, the energy market seems to fit fairly squarely into this category.
So, to sum this up: we are capable of distinguishing between profits that are relatively and absolutely high for a given value of high.
To your third point, yes, I did mean static, apologies for any confusion. If you're not using dynamic models, a dynamic market effectively represents lots of "new" markets being born regularly, if you see what I mean. I'm not sure this is a particularly relevant to the argument, though: the energy markets have remained relatively static for quite some time; any profits they are making at the moment are almost certainly not due to market dynamism. If they show large changes in the future, any prices changes can always be abolished at that point, but at the present date that doesn't stand.
Of course. But there are two options, here. The first is that these infrastructure improvements are paid for by increasing the price of electricity. The second is that these infrastructure improvements are paid for out of general taxation. It's not like consumers aren't giving up money if the government doesn't pay for it, they're just giving up their money through their electricity bill and not the taxman. Given the first of those options hits the poorest disproportionately more than the second, I'd much rather take the second, where the poor can face energy bills they can actually meet, and instead of raising the capital necessary for infrastructure development from them through price rises, we raise it on the wealthiest through tax rises.
EDIT: This second part is effectively also my answer to zomg. I'm also somewhat confused as to why he thinks that any price controls wouldn't change if the wholesale price rises above the profitability zone of a particular price cap. The simple solution if that were to happen would be to... raise the price cap.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Bear in mind that Ed, as energy secretary in 2008, was the one who introduced green subsidies paid for by energy bills rather than through general taxation. Apparently Brown denied him in Copenhagen and he started crying and threatened to resign so he got his way and the renewables subsidy was added to energy bills and taken out of general taxation.
This government didn't change it, but they system was put in place by Ed basically so that the energy companies would take a kicking from the public for high energy bills rather than the government for imposing £4-5bn in taxes for subsidies to big energy companies.
Labour have proposed to freeze prices for 20 months. In that time the wholesale price could rise well above the frozen price. Hence the insanity of this policy. Not even a profit cap would be as bad as this (which is what you are suggesting, a moveable price cap).
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Sure, I'm aware of that. I'd much rather these things were taken out of general taxation rather than made an addition to the bill. Having said that, I can understand why Miliband did so. If you're carbon unfriendly and as a result your energy prices rise, the cause and effect is a little more noticeable than if you're carbon unfriendly and as a result your tax bill rises. I don't think it was the best way of doing things, and I would have done it otherwise, but I can understand how one would could pursue it as a policy, as Miliband's method affects behaviour much more (unfortunately to punitive effect).
EDIT 2: As to second, I can guarantee you it'll be a Carney-style "freeze", where "freeze" means "it won't change unless conditions, a), b), c)... or z) are met". Saying it's a freeze helps cement expectations around a particular price allowing for long-term stability, but actually enforcing a full freeze would be a bad idea, although you don't say that in the same way Carney doesn't really make too much song and dance about the built-in escape clauses on his interest rate freeze.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Energy is not a luxury good. Everybody needs gas and electricity. To say otherwise so that the government can maintain a façade of not subsidising big energy companies is reprehensible. Ed can say what he likes about the cost of energy bills being too high, but he is responsible for it. The renewable subsidies and feed-in tariffs account for more on an average energy bill than the company's profits. The removal of these would be much more effective at ending fuel poverty than a price freeze which would have a destructive effect on investment.
How do we know? Nothing from Labour's literature talks about moveable goal posts. All it says is the price of energy will be frozen for 20 months.
Anyway, the reason no mention has been made is because what you are suggesting is an effective profit cap placed on private companies, something that would not go down well for international investment and would be seen as an almost communist like policy. I can tell you right now that the reaction was very poor today from big investment funds who had just started dipping their toes into UK infrastructure.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's a necessary good to a point, and then no further. That is, once your heating/lighting/basic appliances are met, further use of electricity (i.e., the powering of other luxury goods) is itself a luxury. If you use more electricity than you strictly need, you should face some form of demerit action. On the other hand, use of electricity to satisfy your needs should not be punished. This is what makes the policy difficult to fulfil - satisfying one side (ensuring the poorest can meet their energy necessities) hurts another side (allowing the richest to waste energy), and vice versa.
Personally, I'd always where possible attempt to ensure the poorest can meet their necessities, hence why I'd move these things to general taxation. I can understand people who'd prioritize environmental concerns preferring to punish the rich, even if the result is that some of the poorest don't meet their energy necessities. I disagree with it, strongly, but I don't think it's illogical in any manner.
EDIT 2: There are many prominent economists who work for Labour, and support Labour, in the same way there are many such economists who do the same for the Conservatives. An entirely inflexible price cap is fairly uncontentious within economics as a Bad Thing, whereas moving price controls are more of an open battleground. Labour's economists will say that just as much as the Conservatives' will. Miliband is not a stupid man, and he has some economic background himself. I think we can have a high degree of confidence in the fact this will be a "freeze" and not a freeze. To say otherwise is to attribute a high degree of stupidity or malignity to people who are at the very least bright and not cartoon villains.
It's not really an effective profit cap because it doesn't target a particular profit. It's not seeking to ensure that company profits don't exceed X, it's seeking to ensure that company prices don't exceed Y, where Y is just some value consumers are capable of meeting under reasonable circumstances. It's perfectly possible to increase profit despite facing fixed price of sales, by lowering the cost of production. That does make increasing profit more difficult, yes, and I'm aware it'll deter investment from private sources and require greater investment from the government instead. Up to a point, that's a repercussion I'd be more than happy to accept if it means reducing the financial pressure on the poorest in society. Shouting "communist" doesn't really help anyone and just looks a bit intellectually shallow, in all honesty.
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't think that's true at all. The existence of market dominators and high profits doesn't mean there's no competition - it might simply mean that one company (or several, in the case of Apple and Samsung) is better than the others. Your model relies on a company reaching a good market position and then sitting on their laurels until they're overtaken, whereupon their competitor then sits on theirlaurels whilst the first company tries a bit harder, or lowers prices or improves value etc. It doesn't always work like that, nor does it have to. As another example, Google has had a de facto dominance over search engine use for over a decade now. But it's not for lack of competition - there's a ton of competition, but small, university projects (which is how Google started, in fact) to huge, corporation-backed ones like Yahoo and Bing. There's a load of competition, yet still one dominating player.
Note: I'm certainly not saying that it precludes a lack of competition, simply that it doesn't mean that there is.
I have a few significant problems with this:
1 - Your numbers for the consumer surplus of Europa Universalis 4 is for you, and you alone. Well, I daresay some others would agree, but others might not. Some might be willing to pay £70, or £80. One only had to look at eBay after the Wii came out to see what people were willing to spend on that. So you still have a problem of how you determine what that level is.
2 - Even by your own standards, energy consumption won't work in this tautology. It's the same as healthcare in the US - you can't expect an elastic demand for something like healthcare, because they have you over a barrel - you have no effective choice on whether or not to pay what the insurance company is asking of you, because if you don't, you'll probably die. This is true of energy in the 21st century. You might forgo Europa Universalis 4 if it's over £60, but who would ever forgo electricity and heating? I know some people turn off their central heating when they'd rather leave it on to save money, but electricity? What would they do, burn their furniture in the back garden and cook human-meat sausage over a spit? It's such an absolute requirement to life that I don't think it can be used in that equation, because one's maximum price will depends almost entirely on their own wealth. Most people would give up basically everything before going without electricity (because, in doing so, they'd basically give up everything anyway) so it's not very useful a metric to determine maximum profits.
3 - Some companies do sell things below the cost of production. Maybe not everything, and maybe not all the time, but they do. The razors and blades model, for example. Hell, the PS3 was unprofitable for a long time, whilst they played the long game. When supermarkets sell stuff at half price it's often sold at a loss just to get you in the store. Likewise, there may be many companies unwilling to sell even for significantly above the cost it takes to produce it, for the sake of maintaining a certain image. Book shops are known to shred unsold books to maintain the sense of value placed upon them, and people are constantly bemoaning the effect that Steam Sales have on people's idea of value when it comes to games. It's a lot more complex than your tautology makes out, I think. I appreciate it's just a model, but I think it's lack of finesse renders it a bit useless, because Energy Companies would be a prime example, were they to invest in infrastructure.
4 - I don't think society thinks energy prices are too high (thus we're in this mess) because they just are - it's because they never use to be this high, nor did they increase at such a speed. But the two overwhelmingly largest causes of the increase in prices (and this goes for petrol and beer and all the other things that people complain about the price increases of) are government tariffs and the increase in the cost of the raw materials. It's not because energy companies are making too much money. As zomg said, if you took away the green tariffs, households would save £250 a year. If you took the £3bn in profit and divided it by 60m people, everyone would get £50 each. Or roughly £115 per household, on average. And that's with energy companies making nothing. I don't think private company profits are the problem here.
Maybe not, but their future in the market depends a lot on their investment within it. With a new batch of powerstations needing to be built ASAP, if the market's going to change, it'll be soon, I think.
Ok, if we add a £70bn black hole to the budget that'll need to get paid off, but it's surmountable to be sure. I wouldn't object to us doing that really, if we could be sure that it'd be run effectively when it's done. What I wouldn't want is for us to build it and private companies profit, and I'm not particularly fond of us building it and running them ourselves. The only solution there, for me, would be for us to build them and rent their use to power companies - but I doubt power companies would want that because it'd almost certainly end up being more expensive for them. Effectively, by removing their ability to make profit (to some degree, be it large or small) we're taking away the most efficient method of upgrading our infrastructure there is. Whilst there are alternatives, it's tough to see that any of them are superior to energy companies doing it themselves. If they have to design, build and then run their own stations, you can be sure they'll be doing it with long term goals in mind.
kurtrussell
Banned
Osborne unveils work for benefits plan
Awaits left-wing-and-unemployed-GAF to explain why this is a horrible idea....
Awaits left-wing-and-unemployed-GAF to explain why this is a horrible idea....
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
This kind of approach - work for benefits - hurts the employed. If they are doing jobs for their benefits, why not just create a job to do that? It is punitive and impractical. Training (depending on what it is) or apprenticeships are what should be encouraged. But making long-term unemployed do jobs that could be a paid-for job simply hurts the job market.
CyclopsRock
Member
I actually agree. It´s similar to prison labour - it sounds all well and good, putting the idle to work. But it just means that someone - whether it´s a business or a part of the government - benefits from the cheap labour and they don´t have to hire anyone else to do it.
The only exception to this is if they´re made to do something utterly pointless like digging holes and then filling them up again. But what´s the point in that? Might as well just stay and home and spend their time trying to find a job.
The last one sounds good, though - compulsory training. It´d be good if it extended a bit higher than "improving literacy" (and it might do, I don´t know). That´s not going to help all the unemployed grads. Maybe they could have more advanced stuff, like foreign languages etc also.
kurtrussell
Banned
Well there are choices - the long term unemployed could simply opt to attend the job centre every day. Why would they not want to do that?
It's not a novel idea and costs an absolute fortune to implement. Here's what the right wing thinktank, Policy Exchange has to say.
It's also essentially undercutting the job market, offering 'free' labour to companies or public institutions which would elsewise be hiring someone to carry out that said labour.
Because it costs money to travel. Contrary to popular belief, the £56.80 a week you get on JSA doesn't leave a lot of free money to play with. Unless you're going to pay for free bus/train transport for the unemployed it's unworkable. Commuting costs for the workfare scheme is another reason it's a bad idea, on one hand if you do not increase the amount of money you give the claimant when they are 'working' on workfare, you simply reduce the already meager amount they get. On the other hand, if do pay commuting costs or increase benefit for those on workfare to compensate then an already absurdly expensive policy, which does nothing more productive than sop some right wing fantasies and give corporations free labour to make more profits on (on which they'll squirm out of paying tax on), gets even more expensive.
Little Old Man
Member
To put things into perspective from when I had to sign on, it was £2 on the train with a rail card. So £10 or £15 a week would be used on just getting there to sign on.
Presumably in this plan they will invest in training job centre staff to a) have higher standards and expectations of the people they work with b) provide more personalised service and c) not run each office from a bureaucratic flowchart, and have some ability to use their initiative.
It's a plan dreamed up by hateful morons who are convinced that the unemployed are some sort of lower species. They aren't they are simply people like everyone else. To denigrate them is to denigrate us all. What a vile and disgraceful government this is.
And with that said I present this quote
" There is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by employers.
"Subsidised ('transitional') job schemes that pay a wage can be more effective in raising employment levels than 'work for benefit' programmes. "
This was from a report by.........the Department for Work and Pensions in 2008. They examined schemes that run in lots of countries and found the idea didn't work.
And with that said I present this quote
" There is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by employers.
"Subsidised ('transitional') job schemes that pay a wage can be more effective in raising employment levels than 'work for benefit' programmes. "
This was from a report by.........the Department for Work and Pensions in 2008. They examined schemes that run in lots of countries and found the idea didn't work.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Training sounds like a great idea - hope literacy is just an example and not the whole of the thing.
Working for benefits sound like a really, really bad idea.
Working for benefits sound like a really, really bad idea.
Jezbollah
Member
I had a nice 480 mile drive to visit a customer in Manchester today, so had 5Live on for most of the time. Plenty of call-ins reacting to this new policy.
One overriding impression I had was that the able bodied people who called in to object to oppose the option to do unpaid work for their benefits had little to no concept of using this opportunity to build up experience for a CV and didn't have a concept of how such work may be used as a positive to show activity and work ethic to potential employers.
They also seemed to have little awareness to the concept that job-hunting should be viewed as a competition and that you should strive to put yourself above other candidates for consideration for a job.
It got to a point that after three hours of phone-ins either side of Osborne's speech that there was a striking difference between those who were driven and determined to get a job vs those who had sadly given up hope.
One overriding impression I had was that the able bodied people who called in to object to oppose the option to do unpaid work for their benefits had little to no concept of using this opportunity to build up experience for a CV and didn't have a concept of how such work may be used as a positive to show activity and work ethic to potential employers.
They also seemed to have little awareness to the concept that job-hunting should be viewed as a competition and that you should strive to put yourself above other candidates for consideration for a job.
It got to a point that after three hours of phone-ins either side of Osborne's speech that there was a striking difference between those who were driven and determined to get a job vs those who had sadly given up hope.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
What sort of employer cares that someone spent a bit of time doing completely menial tasks? It barely makes any difference at all. Employers want skilled workers. Doing these sorts of tasks is pointless - what does it do for the cv? Nothing. if welfare is tied to work then doing these menial tasks only shows that you;ve been doing the menial tasks that you have to perform to receive it: it barely differentiates it from just being unemployed. Does it show desire? No not really - you will have to do it. If welfare was tied to meaningful training then that would be excellent (we shall see what the government does with this, I suspect very little, but hope for a lot). Also, as Cyclops and I discussed earlier: it actively harms the employed. I can understand the appeal to some people, but in reality it doesn't work or make sense. This government (and New Labour) want to 'make work pay' by punishing those not in work, not by rewarding workers through creating jobs or raising the minimum wage, etc. Increases of the minimum tax threshold are good but not enough.
The rules for social security have become so arbitrary and punitive that you see people losing jsa for attending an impomptu telephone interview instead of meeting their adviser. It has become distorted so much to suit the frothing demand of the 'hard working' middle that it is more about the process of being unemployed than about finding re-employment. New Labour started this horseshit and grade a cunt Iain Duncan Smith, so fucking inept at his job, has just taken it to the zenith of cuntness. I mean look at it: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/30/iain-duncan-smith-sick-disabled-benefits . Yes, the disabled are clearly the problem, not IDS and his department or the economy not having sufficient jobs.
As it goes, the department's own analysis and statistics reveal that the welfare programmes (not workfare specifically, to be clear) doesn't work: http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/201...tic-that-reveals-welfare-reform-to-be-a-sham/ . As pulsemyne also showed, the department's own research showed workfare not to be effective.
The rules for social security have become so arbitrary and punitive that you see people losing jsa for attending an impomptu telephone interview instead of meeting their adviser. It has become distorted so much to suit the frothing demand of the 'hard working' middle that it is more about the process of being unemployed than about finding re-employment. New Labour started this horseshit and grade a cunt Iain Duncan Smith, so fucking inept at his job, has just taken it to the zenith of cuntness. I mean look at it: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/30/iain-duncan-smith-sick-disabled-benefits . Yes, the disabled are clearly the problem, not IDS and his department or the economy not having sufficient jobs.
As it goes, the department's own analysis and statistics reveal that the welfare programmes (not workfare specifically, to be clear) doesn't work: http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/201...tic-that-reveals-welfare-reform-to-be-a-sham/ . As pulsemyne also showed, the department's own research showed workfare not to be effective.
ed's response to the mail attacking his father
http://labourpress.tumblr.com/post/62751616247/ed-miliband-my-dad-was-a-man-who-loved-britain
pretty forceful!
http://labourpress.tumblr.com/post/62751616247/ed-miliband-my-dad-was-a-man-who-loved-britain
pretty forceful!
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Does it really show self-determination to be forced to do things?
Does this mean they will be employing these long term unemployed people? Because that is the point of it.
There aren't enough jobs. Or rather there is too much competition for the jobs available.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying it will have zero effect. Just that the benefits are so minor that they outweigh the significant negatives (moral and practical issues).
Little Old Man
Member
As much as there may be benefit to having some fresh work experience (menial as it may be), you have to address the bigger problems within the job centre which are allowing people to slip through the net and become long term unemployed. That includes their expectations of JSA claimants, their ability to provide training and teaching to these people, CV classes, more frequent 'back to work interviews'.
Combine that with labour markets still being very tight in many areas across the UK, it's unlikely that firms will have enough of these placements to go round, nor be able to take on many of these staff permanently, and use this programme as a way to benefit from cheap labour.