Just as winter begins to bite, and the morning air has that pleasant dry,cold and crisp feel to in, there is that faint whiff of coincidence in the air. British Gas customers are to face a 7% rise in gas and electricity bills which comes into effect on 10th December. As a result of rising wholesale prices, said British Gas. Oddly enough British Gas has become the second major UK energy supplier to announce price increases for the winter months - when there is a grater demand, and coincidentally a greater profit to be made.
Scottish and Southern Energy intends to raise its domestic gas charges by 9.4% at the start of December, blaming wholesale prices for the increase in customer bills. It is worth noting that the price increase announcement, was made just before just before they reported a 6.1% fall in pre-tax profits to £386m in the first half of the company's financial year.
The market wholesale price for gas is around half of what it was at peak in 2008, yet over the same time period customers prices have only been reduced by less than 10%. No doubt British Gas and the other cartel members (sorry suppliers) will trot out the old excuses of having to respond to forward energy prices, etc. It's strange that the suppliers did not make cuts when market conditions allowed it, they are merely covering their profit margins as wholesale prices slowly rises. The timing is interesting especially at a time when there are reports of a gas glut, perhaps consumers take on all the risks.
Back in October 2009 the then Tory Energy Spokesman, Greg Clark (currently a Minister of State in the Department for Communities and Local Government) said that the "cartel" of the big 6 energy firms would be referred to the Competition Commission by an incoming Conservative Government. The then Tory Energy Spokesperson also condemned the unacceptable lag between the cost of wholesale gas prices and household energy bills - noting that customers were on average being charged some £74 pound too much for their energy per year.
An 'independent' investigation in the Energy companies refusal to pass on reductions in wholesale energy prices to customers would have been welcome along with the promised 'Energy Revolution' to overhaul the energy sector billing structure and charges. It all sounded great, save for the fact that it was a Conservative Government that was responsible for starting the whole sorry mess in the first place by privatising the energy market in the first place, throwing any rational energy pricing structure upon the whims of the 'market' by allowing the newly privatised energy companies to price gouge customers in the first place?
Oddly enough that pre-election pledge for an independent inquiry into the £25 billion-a-year energy industry which has been subject to lengthy and repeated criticisms surrounding accusations of profiteering on electricity and gas, was quietly dropped by the Com Dem Coalition Government. Heaven forbid that principle get in the way of profit.
Few people this winter will have as cozy a relationship with the gas companies as that exists between the political parties within the Westminster village (and without) and the energy supply companies. For sometime before the last Westminster general election, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats made repeated criticisms (and much political capital) from New Labour for its failure to tackle prices charged by the Big Six suppliers. Both the opposition parties publicly and repeatedly demanded an inquiry by the Competition Commission.
There was a faint hope that an inquiry into the nefarious activities of the energy supply cartel (sorry companies) might have had the power to reform the industry, encourage new entrants to break the hold of players such as British Gas and EDF on 99 per cent of the market and even possibly impose price caps. Yet, it appears that barely four months into the Coalition Government, there will be no inquiry has been called for and the Department of Energy and Climate Change confirmed on the 17th August 2010 that it has no plans to refer the industry to the Competition Commission.
Perhaps there ought to be an inquiry into the dubious (and financial rewarding (in cash and kind) relationship between our political parties and the representatives of the energy supply companies who are pretty keen to shower enough goodies around during Party conference season (and beyond) - I suspect not?
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Monday, 15 November 2010
ON THE RIGHT TRACK
It's worth noting that in 2003, a 15 year franchise for running railway services in Wales was awarded to Arriva Trains Wales. Arriva Trains Wales is currently making a healthy profit from this agreement. Despite this, most demand for additional rail services are currently met directly by Welsh Assembly Government funds and are not funded by Arriva Trains Wales which as its priority is to service its shareholders.
Plaid Cymru's announcement that we will consider putting the management of Welsh railways in the hands of a 'not for profit' company when the current franchise contract with Arriva Trains Wales ends in 2018 is significant. This is major step forward when it comes to developing a transport system to suite the needs of the people of Wales, rather than as an add on to transport policy in England.
In Wales we should consider ensuring the transfer of control over the franchise to Welsh Ministers in order to put the franchise in the hands of a ‘not-for-profit’ company. This would allow the new company to reinvest its profits in developing better and more train services for people, instead of the current model where the majority of profits are returned to Arriva Trains Wales' shareholders. This could release extra money to invest in an improved All-Wales Rail Service which could amount to between £100m - £120m over a decade.
There are some serious potential benefits:
• Significant savings – releasing a fund for possible reinvestment projects such as re-opening lines across Wales, improving journey times or purchasing additional rolling stock.
• The development of an All-Wales transport network – with integrated ticketing and timetables across public transport in Wales.
The Glas Cymru model of how a ‘not-for-profit’ company can operate, already provides an excellent example of what's possible and could have great potential for the delivery of much better and more integrated rail services here in Wales.
Plaid Cymru, in government, has gone to great lengths to ensure that improvements to current rail services where they can be made, have been made, running 'rail in Wales,for Wales, means that the possibilities of reopening previously closed railway lines and closed railway stations becomes something more than a pipe-dream. It would also make sense to get the powers to take over responsibility for running the tracks from Network Rail - as any rail projects in Wales are going to be well down the list of priorities. There needs to be much better integration of track and train - something that will allow for far greater efficiencies.
There is a clear need to ensure that easily accessible rail services are available to far more people in the near future. Improving infrastructure, including rail, is absolutely vital to the development of the Welsh economy - to create the successful, sustainable, prosperous and green nation that we know Wales can be.
Plaid Cymru's announcement that we will consider putting the management of Welsh railways in the hands of a 'not for profit' company when the current franchise contract with Arriva Trains Wales ends in 2018 is significant. This is major step forward when it comes to developing a transport system to suite the needs of the people of Wales, rather than as an add on to transport policy in England.
In Wales we should consider ensuring the transfer of control over the franchise to Welsh Ministers in order to put the franchise in the hands of a ‘not-for-profit’ company. This would allow the new company to reinvest its profits in developing better and more train services for people, instead of the current model where the majority of profits are returned to Arriva Trains Wales' shareholders. This could release extra money to invest in an improved All-Wales Rail Service which could amount to between £100m - £120m over a decade.
There are some serious potential benefits:
• Significant savings – releasing a fund for possible reinvestment projects such as re-opening lines across Wales, improving journey times or purchasing additional rolling stock.
• The development of an All-Wales transport network – with integrated ticketing and timetables across public transport in Wales.
The Glas Cymru model of how a ‘not-for-profit’ company can operate, already provides an excellent example of what's possible and could have great potential for the delivery of much better and more integrated rail services here in Wales.
Plaid Cymru, in government, has gone to great lengths to ensure that improvements to current rail services where they can be made, have been made, running 'rail in Wales,for Wales, means that the possibilities of reopening previously closed railway lines and closed railway stations becomes something more than a pipe-dream. It would also make sense to get the powers to take over responsibility for running the tracks from Network Rail - as any rail projects in Wales are going to be well down the list of priorities. There needs to be much better integration of track and train - something that will allow for far greater efficiencies.
There is a clear need to ensure that easily accessible rail services are available to far more people in the near future. Improving infrastructure, including rail, is absolutely vital to the development of the Welsh economy - to create the successful, sustainable, prosperous and green nation that we know Wales can be.
Saturday, 13 November 2010
LETTING THE PASSENGERS TAKE THE STRAIN
News that overcrowding on trains in England and Wales will get substantially worse over the next four years despite rises in ticket prices should come as no surprise to passengers. The House of Commons's Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has noted that the Department for Transports own plans for suggested targets for increasing passenger places would be missed.
The PAC blames the failure on the absence of any requirement to improve capacity within train operators' contracts. The Con Dem government has said plans to improve the situation would be unveiled soon. However, consider that the Conservatives privatised the railways in the first place, it might be best not to have any great expectations on any firm hand being taken with the privatised rail companies. It's also worth remembering that New Labour actually said when they came to office that if the railways had not been privatised then they would have privatised them themselves.
Westminster MPs have expressed their concern about that the "already unacceptable levels of overcrowding will simply get worse and ever more intolerable". Public Accounts Committee - Fifth Report - Increasing Passenger Rail Capacity - makes interesting reading notes that the fundamental problem was a lack of any real incentive for the industry to supply extra capacity without additional taxpayer support.
Basically the current franchise agreements, train operators are required to make "reasonable endeavours" to give peak passengers "a reasonable expectation of a seat within 20 minutes of boarding", but there is no legal burden upon them to expand fleets or improve stations to achieve this.
So what this means is that it has fallen to the taxpayer to provide funds to Network Rail to carry out any upgrade work And that the franchise agreements are merely allow the privatised rail companies to milk their franchises for all they are worth at our expense. This is somewhat ironic because as a result of the economic downturn, the Association of Train Operating Companies actually expects demand for rail travel to grow by around a quarter over the next five years. So the long suffering rail passengers will get a double whammy - having to pay more to be less comfortable.
And this after 13 years of New Labour Government - what a mess!
The PAC blames the failure on the absence of any requirement to improve capacity within train operators' contracts. The Con Dem government has said plans to improve the situation would be unveiled soon. However, consider that the Conservatives privatised the railways in the first place, it might be best not to have any great expectations on any firm hand being taken with the privatised rail companies. It's also worth remembering that New Labour actually said when they came to office that if the railways had not been privatised then they would have privatised them themselves.
Westminster MPs have expressed their concern about that the "already unacceptable levels of overcrowding will simply get worse and ever more intolerable". Public Accounts Committee - Fifth Report - Increasing Passenger Rail Capacity - makes interesting reading notes that the fundamental problem was a lack of any real incentive for the industry to supply extra capacity without additional taxpayer support.
Basically the current franchise agreements, train operators are required to make "reasonable endeavours" to give peak passengers "a reasonable expectation of a seat within 20 minutes of boarding", but there is no legal burden upon them to expand fleets or improve stations to achieve this.
So what this means is that it has fallen to the taxpayer to provide funds to Network Rail to carry out any upgrade work And that the franchise agreements are merely allow the privatised rail companies to milk their franchises for all they are worth at our expense. This is somewhat ironic because as a result of the economic downturn, the Association of Train Operating Companies actually expects demand for rail travel to grow by around a quarter over the next five years. So the long suffering rail passengers will get a double whammy - having to pay more to be less comfortable.
And this after 13 years of New Labour Government - what a mess!
Friday, 12 November 2010
USK POST OFFICE
The news from the Royal Mail that it intends to close the Usk sorting office next year will not only mean a relocation of the workforce to Pontypool as of January 2011, but also shows that particularly if the manner of the announcement is repeated across Wales over the next few years that there is little or no concern for our local communities. It's apparent that the Royal Mail has already made its mind up and I concerned that whatever coherent case is made against closure the Royal Mail will merely pay lip service to it, go through the motions and then merrily press on.
Monmouthshire is a relatively large county and the closure of the office in Usk will lead to a poorer service for the public, especially in rural areas. The Royal Mail has said the closure was a commercial decision yet it has refused to say how much money would be saved by this move to Pontypool. So much for transparency - as far as I can recall (despite the desires of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government) the Royal Mail is still publicly owned so should come clean with the details of any savings that are being made.
Monmouthshire is a relatively large county and the closure of the office in Usk will lead to a poorer service for the public, especially in rural areas. The Royal Mail has said the closure was a commercial decision yet it has refused to say how much money would be saved by this move to Pontypool. So much for transparency - as far as I can recall (despite the desires of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government) the Royal Mail is still publicly owned so should come clean with the details of any savings that are being made.
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
TAKE ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY SECONDS...
Sadly, on Thursday there will be some people out there who will probably feel inconvenienced or put out by the two minutes or one hundred and twenty seconds silence that will be held at 11am. And no doubt come next Sunday there may even be some people who will actually worry about the disruption caused to the traffic by remembrance parades, that prevents them from going about their businesses.
I think that they would do well to remember on Thursday and on Sunday that their petty inconvenience comes at pretty high price. They would do well to remember that as well as remembering the actions of the veterans and survivors who served in Two World Wars, Korea, The Falklands and the Gulf Wars, and other conflicts, on Remembrance Sunday, we are also remembering those who never came back.
Those people, who as Lincoln said, most eloquently gave their last full measure of devotion, to comrades and country, for some of whom there is literally only some corner of a foreign field, a name on a war memorial, fading photographs and fading memories and sometimes no grave at all. Ponder on that on Thursday at 11 o'clock and on Sunday morning.
Two minutes silence and any disruption of traffic for a few hours on a Sunday morning once a year for a remembrance parade or the wearing of poppies in remembrance is the very least we the living can do to honour our veterans and the fallen.
I think that they would do well to remember on Thursday and on Sunday that their petty inconvenience comes at pretty high price. They would do well to remember that as well as remembering the actions of the veterans and survivors who served in Two World Wars, Korea, The Falklands and the Gulf Wars, and other conflicts, on Remembrance Sunday, we are also remembering those who never came back.
Those people, who as Lincoln said, most eloquently gave their last full measure of devotion, to comrades and country, for some of whom there is literally only some corner of a foreign field, a name on a war memorial, fading photographs and fading memories and sometimes no grave at all. Ponder on that on Thursday at 11 o'clock and on Sunday morning.
Two minutes silence and any disruption of traffic for a few hours on a Sunday morning once a year for a remembrance parade or the wearing of poppies in remembrance is the very least we the living can do to honour our veterans and the fallen.
Monday, 8 November 2010
TIME TO ASK THE QUESTION?
Last week the Westminster Welsh Affairs Committee heard that most of the £77m tolls (which cost £15m a year to run and maintain, but generate a net revenue of £77m a year at today's prices) raised per year is currently being used to cover debts and that only maintenance and running costs would need to be covered after 2017. A potential big hint to the Committee that Severn Crossing tolls could be much cheaper once the concession to run them ends in 2017.
It was even suggested that tolls could fall to 20 to 30% of current levels. At the moment motorists fork out £5.50 for cars and up to £16.40 for HGVs. Just for the record since the Severn Crossing Plc took over the concession, they have spent £510m (1990 prices) between serving a debt on the existing crossing and building a new one. Over the period of the concession it is expected that the concession holders will raise £1bn in revenue (1989 prices).
The bridge tolls have become in a tax on jobs, a tax on commuters, a tax on growth and a tax on business in the south of Wales. Plaid Cymru's South Wales Central AM Chris Franks (back in June 2010) obtained figures under the Freedom of Information Act, which showed significant difference between the large amounts of money raised by Severn River Crossing plc from the toll, and the relatively small amount spent on treating the damage to the cables on the old crossing (M48).
Since 2006, some £15m has been spent on main cable work on the first Severn Crossing. The Highways Agency suggests that another £5.8m of repairs will take place over the next five years. Some £225,733,000 has been collected in bridge toll revenue since 2006. People may driven to wonder if they are going to get saddled with major work to maintain the bridges after the toll profits have been siphoned off by the concessionary company when the bridges are finally returned to public ownership in 2017.
Sadly just because something could happen does not mean that it will - I cannot for a moment imagine a Westminster Government forgoing this potential tidy little earner. One question that is yet to be answered is come 2017 who actually is going to own the bridge (or bridges)? The situation is potentially complex as the bridge (or bridges) sit on the border - with the toll on the newer bridge being collected in Wales, and the toll on the older bridge being collected in England. Will the bridge and the tolls simply revert back to the Department of transport?
Or does the National Assembly get a look in, by default? If the current tolls were halved then, what could be accomplished by using a percentage to cover maintenance of the bridge and using the remainder of the toll for ring fenced capital projects – such as new integrated transport systems, reopening railway lines, funding tram systems and investing in rail freight? This would be far more beneficial for all of us in Wales than the finance disappearing into the Westminster coffers or to bail out the bankers?
It was even suggested that tolls could fall to 20 to 30% of current levels. At the moment motorists fork out £5.50 for cars and up to £16.40 for HGVs. Just for the record since the Severn Crossing Plc took over the concession, they have spent £510m (1990 prices) between serving a debt on the existing crossing and building a new one. Over the period of the concession it is expected that the concession holders will raise £1bn in revenue (1989 prices).
The bridge tolls have become in a tax on jobs, a tax on commuters, a tax on growth and a tax on business in the south of Wales. Plaid Cymru's South Wales Central AM Chris Franks (back in June 2010) obtained figures under the Freedom of Information Act, which showed significant difference between the large amounts of money raised by Severn River Crossing plc from the toll, and the relatively small amount spent on treating the damage to the cables on the old crossing (M48).
Since 2006, some £15m has been spent on main cable work on the first Severn Crossing. The Highways Agency suggests that another £5.8m of repairs will take place over the next five years. Some £225,733,000 has been collected in bridge toll revenue since 2006. People may driven to wonder if they are going to get saddled with major work to maintain the bridges after the toll profits have been siphoned off by the concessionary company when the bridges are finally returned to public ownership in 2017.
Sadly just because something could happen does not mean that it will - I cannot for a moment imagine a Westminster Government forgoing this potential tidy little earner. One question that is yet to be answered is come 2017 who actually is going to own the bridge (or bridges)? The situation is potentially complex as the bridge (or bridges) sit on the border - with the toll on the newer bridge being collected in Wales, and the toll on the older bridge being collected in England. Will the bridge and the tolls simply revert back to the Department of transport?
Or does the National Assembly get a look in, by default? If the current tolls were halved then, what could be accomplished by using a percentage to cover maintenance of the bridge and using the remainder of the toll for ring fenced capital projects – such as new integrated transport systems, reopening railway lines, funding tram systems and investing in rail freight? This would be far more beneficial for all of us in Wales than the finance disappearing into the Westminster coffers or to bail out the bankers?
Sunday, 7 November 2010
WATCHING THIS SPACE...
The High Court judges decision to order a re-run of this year's General Election campaign in the Greater Manchester constituency of former New Labour minister Phil Woolas may well fill more than a few column inches over the next few months. Phil Woolas who was accused of stirring up racial tensions in his campaign leaflets by suggesting Mr Watkins (the Lib Dem candidate) had pandered to Muslim militants, and had refused to condemn death threats Mr Woolas said he had received from such groups. The court heard that Mr Woolas had run a "risky" campaign, which was designed to "galvanise the white Sun vote" because he feared he faced defeat on polling day.
So the Lib Dems and Phil Woolas got their day in court and Phil lost.What happens next may prove even more interesting, and not just necessarily for Phil Woolas who appears to have been seriously thrown to the wolves by the Labour Party. Will the electorate use the forthcoming by-election as an opportunity to give the Lib Dems a kicking for siding with the Tories, is there as yet still unfinished business between the electorate the the Labour Party. What will happen to the Tory and Lib Dem votes as this by-election which will be a first opportunity to pass judgement on the proposed Tory - Lib Dem public sector spending cuts?
So the Lib Dems and Phil Woolas got their day in court and Phil lost.What happens next may prove even more interesting, and not just necessarily for Phil Woolas who appears to have been seriously thrown to the wolves by the Labour Party. Will the electorate use the forthcoming by-election as an opportunity to give the Lib Dems a kicking for siding with the Tories, is there as yet still unfinished business between the electorate the the Labour Party. What will happen to the Tory and Lib Dem votes as this by-election which will be a first opportunity to pass judgement on the proposed Tory - Lib Dem public sector spending cuts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)