pre-payment metering in its current form is inherently unfair, and results in higher charges for people who have to (or choose to) pay in advance, but this is mainly down the outdated software systems that these types of meters run off, and subsequently a higher cost to serve these customers.

When smart meters are in place, and it is possible to have 'live' charging for consumption, and the suppliers start to implement new systems, I see "pay as you go energy" becoming much more competitive, widespread and socially acceptable than it is now.

What makes you think that some technology, used more widely, will change the behaviour of the major energy suppliers?

It is possible that it may happen.

Unfortunately there is a similar precedent with water meters which have been available for a couple of decades at least now and are always fitted on new housing but the retrofit onto the vast majority of housing stock being at the choice of the homeowner.

Obviously only the homes which will benefit from a meter (ie no children, out at work all day, etc) ever voluntarily ask for a water meter whilst the heaviest users stick to the clumsy water rates method.

If a smart meter allowed me to choose pay-as-you-go electricity then I would only be interested if it saved me money, sounds obvious, but its more obvious that someone somewhere has to pay more for the service to work.

I am not sure Ed Milliband should step into this row. 5% of energy costs are due to the VAT that is required by his beloved European Union - an organisation which the Little Europeaner won't allow the British public to have a say on whether our nation remains inside of this isolationist, backward, economically disastrous political union - whilst approximately £112 (will rise to £300 by 2020) of our bills each year are as a result of the green taxes that he implemented whilst in Government.

You've been reading the Daily Mail! Which idiotic party took us into the "Common Market"? Which idiotic PM signed up to Maastrict (while pretending to be tough on Europe), which party does our imbecilic, overgrown schoolboy of a PM belong to?

No. Actually I have been reading the Telegraph. Historically both parties have been as bad as each other. At least now though one party is willing to give the British people a say over whether they wish to remain part of the EU.

Regarding David Cameron personally, although I have many ideological differences with him it is completely unfair to refer to him as an overgrown schoolboy. Under this Liberal Conservative coalition government this country is a better place now than it was in 2010 - crime is down, immigration is down, the economy is growing, taxes are down, investment in infrastructure is up, the number of speed cameras is down, the deficit is smaller, job creation is up, education standards are improving for the first time in 40 years - and for me personally I am able to better reap the benefits of the fruits of my labour.

The test of a good government is whether it leaves office with the country in a better shape than when it entered into office. The Attlee government, the subsequent Tory governments in the 50s/early 60s, the Thatcher government and this Coalition government (assuming it breaks up in 2015) have all achieved it. Credit should be given to Clegg and Cameron - they have proven far more capable in leading this country than Major, Blair or Brown.

That may be so on your planet, but you should try ours.

Call me cynical, or call me a realist, but I think I'll have drawn my last breath looooong before this fabled referendum ever sees the light of day and even if it does and if the vote is a resounding "get out" then nothing will be done other than a feeble attempt to renegotiate terms of staying in.

Its a vote catcher to claw back attention from UKIP and appease the male readers of the Daily Fail while their wives look at thin naked women with highlighted cellulose on the sidebar, which one are you ?

No conservative should step into the argument.

VAT on domestic fuel was introduced by Norman Lamont in 1994 (after pledging that the scope of VAT would not be widened). He introduced a rate of 8% and intended to increase it to the full rate of 17.5% the following year but lost the vote in parliament. One of the first things Gordon Brown did was reduce the rate to 5%.

I believe once VAT is applied to a good or service, it can no longer be zero-rated and also that the minimum VAT rate allowed in the EU is 5%.

You really do need to brush up on your political history young Titan

Now?
We had a referendum about whether to remain in the EEC, under Harold Wilson (Labour) in 1975.

Borrowing and debt are up (hugely), long term unemployment is up, youth unemployment is up, wages and incomes of the bottom 95% have stagnated or depreciated against inflation, part-time working is up, zero-hours contracts are up, child poverty is up.
And growth was 0.7% last quarter, whoop-de-doo, take London out of the equation and large parts of the country are still in negative figures.
Yep, this country is a better place now, yes sirree.

Excellent post.

Don't forget welfare reform and more private sector jobs.

This is not a government achievement. Crime has been on a downward trajectory all across the developed world, It's ridiculous to give the government credit for this.


Net immigration is slightly down, but it's still 75% above the government's target, and last year it increased.


This is not a government achievement. The economy spends most of its time growing, that doesn't mean we should congratulate the government for this fact of life.
The important question is, are the government having a positive or negative impact on growth? To which the answer is
This is not a government achievement. Maybe if they weren't cutting taxes for the wealthiest individuals, and large corporations, they would have enough money to avoid some of the cuts to services and benefits that are devastating some of the country's poorest and most vulnerable people.


This is factually incorrect. I found it harder than I expected to find official figures to contradict this. However, rlMartin Wolf says that the government has halved public investmentrl, and Nick Clegg earlier in the year rlapologised for the cuts in capital spendingrl admitting they had been a mistake, so I think it's pretty safe to say you've got this one wrong as well.


This is not a government achievement. If you don't want to be fined for speeding, don't speed.


This is not a government achievement. The government has spectacularly missed its own targets on this one. The deficit is higher than it was going to be under Labour plans which Osborne derided for not cutting the deficit fast enough.


This is not a government achievement - yes that is what tends to happen after a recession. It would probably be higher had the government not ruined economic growth with their self defeating austerity measures.


This is factually incorrect. Exactly what quantitative evidence have you seen which suggests this?
Do you genuinely think education standards didn't increase at all from 1970-2010? If so then you are a moron.


So the test of a good government isn't have they defended the weakest most vulnerable in society? Have they made the country fairer? Have they laid the foundations for a prosperous future for the country? Have they enhanced Britain's position on the global stage?

Instead it roughly translates as: if a government comes in power just after a global recession, then regardless of the government's policies the country will be in a better position when they leave, therefore they have been successful. Can you genuinely not see a problem with that?

Well you live and learn.

2 economically ignorant people in a mutual appreciation society, who would ever have thought it?


Oh and by the way.

[sizeWHICH ECONOMY?[/size

Another 'yah boo' post from behind the coat tails of another poster.

Not bothered to answer any of the questions yet, though.