Energy price rises and price cap discussion.

[Trainbike46]

Regarding insulation, surely a lot of people will improve their home insulation anyway, regardless of what government does as the current high energy prices means the pay back time will be a lot shorter than it was.

So perhaps any government grants for insulation should be focused on those on low incomes who may not have the capital to undertake home insulation measures otherwise.

Government action will also need to address the rental section; for the social housing sector by providing the capital to install insulation, and for the private rental sector by speeding up minimum EPC standards (possibly something like: For new tenants and new fixed term contracts, from 2023 EPC D or better, from 2024 EPC C or better, from 2025 EPC B or better)

In addition, the government needs to update standards so that all newbuilds are well-insulated (passivhaus or similar) from the start.

 

[Herefordian]

Borrowing and taxation.



If we don't put in place long term measures to remove the need for the subsidies, they will go on forever.



Jobs? We near enough have full employment at the moment, companies can't get staff.

Food, well, if your energy costs are cut you'll better be able to afford it.

We're already in a mountain of debt. Tax rises in the current climate? Please.

The subsidies won't have to go on forever if we properly invest in renewables. That's the reason we're in this mess.

If businesses can't afford their energy bills, they will fold and people will lose their jobs.

Many people cannot afford food or energy now. Insulation will take years. They need support now.

It is an investment that will pay for its self in reduced future energy bill subsidies, and a reduced future burden on our NHS.


Do both, in parallel.


People to be warm, and in the medium term insulation is a way to achieve that at a lower cost than crediting everyone's electricity account with £400 or whatever the figure ends up being. Clearly, we cannot insulate every home overnight, but every home we do insulate is a family that can keep warm. And it's slightly less demand on our energy resources which helps everyone else. If we don't, then we will be in a permanent cycle of government subsidies.

If I was the government, I would be ordering civil servants to draw up a plan to start the immediate insulation of homes. As a starting point, this would mean providing free materials to anyone who is able to do the work themselves (or if they have a willing family member or friend who was able to do it). While this was happening we could make plans to insulate homes belonging to those who cannot do the work themselves, or who need different solutions to rolls of loft insulation.

Yes, but the money still needs to be found in the first place.

As things stand, I think people need the credit on their electricity account more than insulation they'll be waiting years for.

Insulating every dwelling will take years and people need to buy food and pay their bills before then.

Yes, we should invest in insulation and renewable energy. But many people need a solution now.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Our outgoing PM had suggested higher bills are worth it to stop Putin. I suppose it depends on what his ultimate intentions are. Not so sure if years of pretty much putting the majority of the UK into fuel poverty is going to be considered 'worth it', if all he ever wanted was more control over a few nations the majority couldn't point out on a map.

Johnson has made many unforgivable mistakes, but he's right there.

There eventually comes a pont when you can't reduce energy usage any further without serious and unacceptable consequences, such as hypothermia because you can't afford to heat your house.

One interesting problem that the UK has is that the housing stock is simply old and not fit for purpose.

 

[tomuk]

In addition, the government needs to update standards so that all newbuilds are well-insulated (passivhaus or similar) from the start.

The 202002 building regs do bring insulation standards upto passivhaus. Triple glazing, air tightness, ie MVHR not so much.

The subsidies won't have to go on forever if we properly invest in renewables. That's the reason we're in this mess.

We are investing in renewables in the UK. Our electricity is substantially less carbon intensive then Germany not as low as France but they use 70% nuclear.

 

[AM9]

We're already in a mountain of debt. Tax rises in the current climate? Please.

The subsidies won't have to go on forever if we properly invest in renewables. That's the reason we're in this mess.

If businesses can't afford their energy bills, they will fold and people will lose their jobs.

Many people cannot afford food or energy now. Insulation will take years. They need support now.



Yes, but the money still needs to be found in the first place.

As things stand, I think people need the credit on their electricity account more than insulation they'll be waiting years for.

Insulating every dwelling will take years and people need to buy food and pay their bills before then.

Yes, we should invest in insulation and renewable energy. But many people need a solution now.

I wonder if there was social media in 1939, would there be pleas that we couldn't afford to go to war against Germany.
There are times when the imperative to deal with an existential threat to the population overrides trivial issues like 'it's going to cost a lot of money and increase my taxes'. We've just been through COVID and although highly inconvenient, a side-effect of the west atanding up to the Russians has resulted in unprecedented global energy price rises.
This government has a massive hang-up on fixing the real problem of totally inadequate thermal efficency of the domestic housing stock, so it will eventually be forced into paying householders to waste enough energy to overcome the losses instead of the obvious fix, i.e. stop the leaks. That is insanity caused entirely by political dogma.
It has to be done in parallel with investing in renewables and temporarily supporting the most vulnerable.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is going back to traditional life means that ordinary people will be used to cold houses, and the family lives in a house of less than 100 square meters? and three meals a day are rice mixed with millet or bread mixed with barley, and only a little pickle, two saury and a bowl of miso soup. When someone gives your family a basket of fruit, you will be amazed and say "such a precious gift!".

Miso soup is a meal that our part of the UK is not known for. What part of Britain has it as a local traditional meal?

 

[tomuk]

Miso soup is a meal that our part of the UK is not known for. What part of Britain has it as a local traditional meal?

I assume Gostav is from Japan. Or is confusing one group of islands off the continent in the Atlantic with another group of of islands of the continent in the Pacific.

 

[DelayRepay]

We're already in a mountain of debt. Tax rises in the current climate? Please.

The subsidies won't have to go on forever if we properly invest in renewables. That's the reason we're in this mess.

I agree that tax rises are not viable in the current climate. Possibly they are viable for the highest earners, but I doubt that would be politically acceptable to the new Prime Minister.

Borrowing to fund improvements, on the other hand, would be ok, despite the existing levels of debt. We have to borrow to fund the bill credits, and without improvements the bill credits will have to continue for ever. If we borrow to invest in reducing consumption, then this will pay for its self by reducing the need for future credits. This needs to happen in parallel with renewables - less renewables will be needed if we waste less energy overall, so we will achieve an optimal position sooner.

Many people cannot afford food or energy now. Insulation will take years. They need support now.

As things stand, I think people need the credit on their electricity account more than insulation they'll be waiting years for.

Insulating every dwelling will take years and people need to buy food and pay their bills before then.

Yes, we should invest in insulation and renewable energy. But many people need a solution now.

I agree that it will take years to insulate every property. But the sooner we start, the sooner its done. And we don't need every property insulated to make a difference. Every house that is improved means a family who can keep warm without spending as much on fuel. It also means less demand for energy overall which means prices should reduce. It means our renewables make up a greater percentage of total energy supply, so there's less dependency on foreign imports. It reduces the chance of blackouts due to energy shortages. For maximum gain you would start with poorly insulated properties occupied by people with low incomes. But I would not want to over complicate a scheme by means-testing.

A couple of years ago, when the country faced a different emergency, the government launched the Covid vaccine programme. The NHS, with support from the armed forces, local authorities and an army of volunteers did what some thought was impossible. I think we are facing a similar emergency now and need a similar response.

I don't see it as either/or - I absolutely agree that in the short term the government needs to subsidise energy use. But this is simply not a sustainable solution. Unlike investing in insulation, there's no long term benefit to the expenditure. We've already seen that the £400 proposed less than six months ago is going to need to be topped up.

We are investing in renewables in the UK. Our electricity is substantially less carbon intensive then Germany not as low as France but they use 70% nuclear.

This is true, but Gridwatch shows that on a typical day recently around half of our electricity has been generated from gas. And that's during the summer. In the winter gas use will rise - more electricity is required, solar is less effective, and people will use gas for their domestic hearing in addition to power stations using it to generate electricity.

I know we are investing in renewables, and should continue to do so at pace, but when you look at the figures, we've still got a mountain to climb.

 

[tomuk]

This is true, but Gridwatch shows that on a typical day recently around half of our electricity has been generated from gas. And that's during the summer.

That isn't typical.

Since March in response to the gas shortages we have been exporting electricity to Europe. LNG is being imported to the UK because there is no port capacity in Europe. We are then burning it in our power stations and exporting the electricity to Europe. This lets them use the gas they do have for non power generation or store it. This exporting is also happening as France has lots of nuclear plants offline recently too.

For example at the time of this post were are generating 123% of UK demand and exporting the excess 23% via the interconnectors to Europe.

 

[DelayRepay]

That isn't usual. Since March in response to the gas shortages we have been exporting electricity to Europe. LNG is being imported to the UK because there is no port capacity in Europe. We are then burning it in our power stations and exporting the electricity to Europe. This lets them use the gas they do have for non power generation or store it. This exporting is also happening as France has lots of nuclear plants offline during the summer.

For example at the time of this post were are generating 123% of UK demand and exporting the excess 23% via the interconnectors to Europe.

I understand that, but even if you strip out the power going overseas through interconnectors, we are still very dependent on gas.

Currently renewables are only generating 0.64GW. Solar's contribution is zero (for obvious reasons given it's not light yet).

My point is less about exact figures and more that we have a mountain to climb before we can end our reliance on gas generation of electricity. We absolutely need to end our dependency on gas, I am simply pointing out that we are a long way from being able to do so.

It needs a two-pronged attack. On the supply side by investing in renewables (and nuclear), and on the demand side by reducing demand through more efficient energy usage in homes, businesses and the public sector. This way we'll reach an equilibrium quicker than if we focus all our efforts increasing supply alone.

 

[Bantamzen]

They won't and they shouldn't. We need to reduce our consumption.

Government help should solely be to smooth the effect so people have time to make those changes, plus helping them to make them via e.g. insulation.

If 42 degrees Celsius isn't a wakeup, perhaps the price will be?

For COVID things have eventually returned to "old normal". For energy, they cannot, will not and must not.

Whilst we should be looking for ways to lessen our energy consumption, for both ecological and financial reasons, let's not pretend for a moment that just lessening use will suddenly turn things around environmentally. I know its the current trend for a generation to believe that we can just flick a switch and make things better, but our species has been changing the environment for literally thousands of years. From the moment that the first farmer cut down the first tree to make way for agriculture, we set out on this route. Cutting usage today won't change things tomorrow, it will take decades, centuries and probably millennia before any tangible results will be seen. We need to be honest about this, otherwise we are just chasing rainbows and not tackling the real problem.

That's not to say we should do nothing, but we have to be realistic. There are over 7 billion of us on this planet, and we are going to consume more & more. So we need to find more efficient ways of generating, storing and consuming energy. We also need to make far more effort in re-fixing carbon back into the ground to offset all the carbon we have released by reforesting but also making our urban areas greener, which in turn can actually reduce our energy use. But most of all we need to take energy out of the hands of the speculators, and make energy public property in which we all have some say, even if it is just via the ballot box. Too long have we relied on private companies to provide energy to us at whatever prices they feel will make their shareholders profit. I would rather pay a little more in tax to have a predicable flow of energy & a cost that cannot and will not spiral out of control, as we are going to see this year.

How do we achieve this I suspect you'll ask? Well it would be a good question, and if I am honest I haven't yet a clue. But these are the things that we should all be asking, because collectively we might just find a way to achieve it. In fact we have to, because if not, in time, all this will lead to serious civil unrest.

 

[DelayRepay]

But most of all we need to take energy out of the hands of the speculators, and make energy public property in which we all have some say, even if it is just via the ballot box. Too long have we relied on private companies to provide energy to us at whatever prices they feel will make their shareholders profit. I would rather pay a little more in tax to have a predicable flow of energy & a cost that cannot and will not spiral out of control, as we are going to see this year.

I agree - I am not some kind of Jeremy Corbyn 'nationalise everything' person, but I think energy supplies are too important to the country to be left in the hands of the private sector. Especially when that sector has ineffective regulation.

Leaving aside the argument about fossil fuels, we are an energy rich country with our North Sea oil and gas. Imagine how different things could be if instead of selling the extraction rights, those assets were managed by the state. The government could have built up significant profits and would be able to minimise the impact of global price fluctuations.

But what is done is done, I think we're too far down the road to nationalise energy production now and if we tried the cost would be astronomical.

How do we achieve this I suspect you'll ask? Well it would be a good question, and if I am honest I haven't yet a clue. But these are the things that we should all be asking, because collectively we might just find a way to achieve it. In fact we have to, because if not, in time, all this will lead to serious civil unrest.

Civil unrest, and worse. You are right this is a complex problem that needs complex solutions. Sadly the short termism approach of politicians of all parties means we won't see those solutions.

 

[tomuk]

Leaving aside the argument about fossil fuels, we are an energy rich country with our North Sea oil and gas. Imagine how different things could be if instead of selling the extraction rights, those assets were managed by the state. The government could have built up significant profits and would be able to minimise the impact of global price fluctuations.

We didn't give the oil and gas away for free companies obtained licenses which they paid for by fees and ongoing taxes. The government couldn't build up a reserve because the tax revenues were used to keep the country running. We were nearly bankrupt in the 70s.

 

[Yew]

We were nearly bankrupt in the 70s.

That's not how state-level macroeconomics works.

 

[Bantamzen]

I agree - I am not some kind of Jeremy Corbyn 'nationalise everything' person, but I think energy supplies are too important to the country to be left in the hands of the private sector. Especially when that sector has ineffective regulation.

Indeed, but this has to be on a global scale, and with some commonality across the board. Governments the world over need to start to committing their energy production to public ownership, and accountability as well as sharing fairly. We shouldn't have to turn off our heating, or cook less food because a shareholder somewhere wants a higher return, or speculators somewhere thinks that future energy isn't costing enough.

Leaving aside the argument about fossil fuels, we are an energy rich country with our North Sea oil and gas. Imagine how different things could be if instead of selling the extraction rights, those assets were managed by the state. The government could have built up significant profits and would be able to minimise the impact of global price fluctuations.

Quite honestly, & younger me would baulk at this, but I honestly think for now we need to invest in nuclear fission. Yes it comes with its inherent dangers, and yes extracting the fuel can be damaging. But compared to the available, viable alternatives it is the best way at the moment to give us at least some control back on energy dependency, and thus some control back on cost. Longer term we need to be greener, and I have long argued that as a nation we are so blessed with a temperate climate that allows us to test & experiment on all sorts of greener energy production & storage. So once we have committed to nuclear as the medium term solution, we should look to invest in R&D in harvesting all the energy Mother Earth & beyond provides us on a daily basis.

But what is done is done, I think we're too far down the road to nationalise energy production now and if we tried the cost would be astronomical.

You may be right here, but just because something is hugely difficult, or hugely expensive doesn't mean we should take it off the table when there are potential longer term benefits. At some point in the next couple of years, energy companies are in for a huge shock as usage will likely drop considerably. We've already seen numerous energy companies bail out, there will be more to come in the future. So we may end up having no choice but to bring it back into public ownership, just as is happening on the rails.

Civil unrest, and worse. You are right this is a complex problem that needs complex solutions. Sadly the short termism approach of politicians of all parties means we won't see those solutions.

Sadly its not just politicians, in some ways they are just echo chambers for a broader spectrum of society. There are a lot of people out there in the environmentalist movement that are just too naïve, or worse just too desperate to be the ones to find the "solution" to the man made climate changes we are seeing. They focus in on things like air travel, or eating meat & try to convince anyone that will listen that cutting these things out will make a difference. But they won't, at least not in our lifetimes or many generations to come. As you say the solutions are very complex, and require a huge amount of effort & time to start to make a difference.

In the meantime as it costs more just to be able to survive, more and more people will be pushed to the edge. And when enough people cannot get by any more, all this will start to be played out on the streets, and will almost certainly become violent.

 

[tomuk]

That's not how state-level macroeconomics works.

Ok then but you not agree that by the end of the seventies, inflation was rampant, growth low and unemployment rising. The country was not in economic rude health.

Indeed, but this has to be on a global scale, and with some commonality across the board. Governments the world over need to start to committing their energy production to public ownership, and accountability as well as sharing fairly. We shouldn't have to turn off our heating, or cook less food because a shareholder somewhere wants a higher return, or speculators somewhere thinks that future energy isn't costing enough.

That isn't what is happening

Quite honestly, & younger me would baulk at this, but I honestly think for now we need to invest in nuclear fission. Yes it comes with its inherent dangers, and yes extracting the fuel can be damaging. But compared to the available, viable alternatives

Nuclear fission isn't dangerous. Deaths from the nuclear incidents there have been pale into insignificance with those from daily life.

You may be right here, but just because something is hugely difficult, or hugely expensive doesn't mean we should take it off the table when there are potential longer term benefits. At some point in the next couple of years, energy companies are in for a huge shock as usage will likely drop considerably. We've already seen numerous energy companies bail out, there will be more to come in the future. So we may end up having no choice but to bring it back into public ownership, just as is happening on the rails.

They are failing because of the energy cap it forces them to charge less for the energy than they are paying. The energy cap was a stupid policy from Theresa May. The producers and the wholesale market need reform.

 

[TheEdge]

Everyone suddenly going "oh, nuclear power maybe isn't all bad", thanks for finally coming round to it, pity you are several decades late.

Sadly morons and politicians have struggled to tell the difference between the Soviet Union running a flawed reactor design far beyond the edge of stability and Japan being in the most tectonically active part of the planet with building proven safe designs in Suffolk, Somerset, Lancashire and wherever else.

 

[GS250]

Civil unrest, and worse. You are right this is a complex problem that needs complex solutions. Sadly the short termism approach of politicians of all parties means we won't see those solutions.

Maybe what those at the very top desire? The nett result usually being changes that end up benefiting the super elite.

Agree with the that other post about nuclear power too. Long neglected.

 

[johncrossley]

Regarding insulation, surely a lot of people will improve their home insulation anyway, regardless of what government does as the current high energy prices means the pay back time will be a lot shorter than it was.

You would think so, but look at your typical American wooden house. Insulation is virtually non-existent and gas heating often uses gigantic boilers. Depending on the climate they already spend a fortune on heating, and often also a lot on air-conditioning in the summer.

 

[ComUtoR]

So what happens when your customers want to pay less but your costs greatly increase?

Reduce staffing, freeze wages, increase productivity.

Prices need to reflect the hard reality of the costs involved. Everything seems to be driven by price and a constant desire to be cheap all the time.

The constant switching of tarrifs and a market driven by comparison sites and "cheap energy" If the "true" energy price is now reflecting the actual costs then I happy to pay it.

 

[Howardh]

If I walk into a pub or cafe and it's cold because they don't have the heating on...I'll walk out. Which is of no help to the pub or cafe, and they may well go under if we all do the same - and the most worrying thing is I can't think of a way round this.

Even during the times in lockdown when you were allowed to eat and drink outside, most provided heaters and shelter to get the custom back...they can't even do that if the bills are too high. One suggestion my local's landlord had was - as he has a load of regulars - some kind of "membership" where for a few quid the bar becomes members only (buy on the night if you aren't regular) and that fee goes towards heating the place up. If it were a tenner or so someone like myself could "join" a few bars and know I'll have somewhere to go in the winter. If someone didn't want to do that they could pay a couple of quid to enter (anyone using the loo who doesn't have a drink is "asked" to contribute £1 to the charity box anyway).

In return the drinks/food prices are kept at current levels more-or-less.

 

[yorksrob]

Reduce staffing, freeze wages, increase productivity.

Prices need to reflect the hard reality of the costs involved. Everything seems to be driven by price and a constant desire to be cheap all the time.

The constant switching of tarrifs and a market driven by comparison sites and "cheap energy" If the "true" energy price is now reflecting the actual costs then I happy to pay it.

The retail price is reflecting market speculation rather than the cost of production.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The retail price is reflecting market speculation rather than the cost of production.

It has been ever so.

 

[yorksrob]

It has been ever so.

Indeed.

 

[Lost property]

In case anybody missed it, today's Express contains a statement from non other than Boris " we saw this coming "....so we just chose to ignore it as it's much easier that way and, now it has, we (as in the Gov't) can simply transfer the responsibility to the consumer to control their energy use...true, in part, but the inconvenient matter of paying still remains unaddressed.

Also, the UK, now firmly established, again according to Boris, as a "world beater " is duly living up to this accolade...with a 214% increase in prices !....other, less developed of course, well obviously ! nations have managed to keep the rise considerably lower and in double figures. Funny that .

 

[DelayRepay]

Quite honestly, & younger me would baulk at this, but I honestly think for now we need to invest in nuclear fission. Yes it comes with its inherent dangers, and yes extracting the fuel can be damaging. But compared to the available, viable alternatives it is the best way at the moment to give us at least some control back on energy dependency, and thus some control back on cost. Longer term we need to be greener, and I have long argued that as a nation we are so blessed with a temperate climate that allows us to test & experiment on all sorts of greener energy production & storage. So once we have committed to nuclear as the medium term solution, we should look to invest in R&D in harvesting all the energy Mother Earth & beyond provides us on a daily basis.

I agree with the need to invest in new forms of power generation, and I think nuclear is our only option. However, if the government are investing, then they either need to own and operate the facilities, or they need to agree maximum prices if it's operated by a third party. What must not happen is that the government funds research and development and infrastructure, only for businesses to use that infrastructure to generate excessive profits. This of course means the government underwrites the risk of the facility being unsuccessful, or prices falling to such a level that the facility is not profitable.

You may be right here, but just because something is hugely difficult, or hugely expensive doesn't mean we should take it off the table when there are potential longer term benefits. At some point in the next couple of years, energy companies are in for a huge shock as usage will likely drop considerably. We've already seen numerous energy companies bail out, there will be more to come in the future. So we may end up having no choice but to bring it back into public ownership, just as is happening on the rails

When we talk about energy companies we need to differentiate between the different types of companies. The suppliers are having a hard time - their profits are constrained by the price cap hence several collapsing. The companies who extract oil and gas, and who run power stations, seem to be doing ok!

In the meantime as it costs more just to be able to survive, more and more people will be pushed to the edge. And when enough people cannot get by any more, all this will start to be played out on the streets, and will almost certainly become violent.

Yes, as we saw during the 2011 riots, it can only take a small spark to ignite a fire and this will soon spread. And it's not just fuel, it's food prices too. And if things get bad, it might be shortages (of fuel, leading to shortages of food). We've got industrial action taking place in multiple sectors. We have high levels of employment at the moment, this won't continue if businesses start to close due to rising costs and lack of custom. It all feels very unstable.

I am actually quite concerned about where we could end up this winter, or next winter. I hope whoever becomes PM in a couple of weeks time is equally concerned. Because in the short term we need more bill credits or cash handouts. Fiddling around with tax rates won't help much. And we all need to keep our fingers crossed for a mild winter. A really cold spell will be a disaster.

Even during the times in lockdown when you were allowed to eat and drink outside, most provided heaters and shelter to get the custom back...they can't even do that if the bills are too high. One suggestion my local's landlord had was - as he has a load of regulars - some kind of "membership" where for a few quid the bar becomes members only (buy on the night if you aren't regular) and that fee goes towards heating the place up. If it were a tenner or so someone like myself could "join" a few bars and know I'll have somewhere to go in the winter. If someone didn't want to do that they could pay a couple of quid to enter (anyone using the loo who doesn't have a drink is "asked" to contribute £1 to the charity box anyway).

That would work in some places, and people might join if it works out cheaper to go to the pub every night for a soft drink and a warm up than to heat their own house. Obviously whether it's viable for the pub depends on how many people take it up, and what margin they can make on food/drinks (remembering that the wholesale prices and distribution costs of these items are also rising). It might work for locals with regulars, but I doubt it will work for town centre 'Friday night' type pubs.

My local has a new landlord, the old landlady retired a few weeks ago. He's already looking at cutting back the opening times to save both fuel and staff costs. His current plan is to close on Mondays and Tuesdays, open Wednesday and Thursday evenings only and open Friday - Sunday all day.

Even my employer, a large company with 20k+ UK employees, is looking at how to reduce costs. Our office hasn't been fully occupied since Covid, we already have one floor that's out of use and they are looking at a further consolidation to close another floor, to save on heating and lighting costs.

 

[Bantamzen]

I agree with the need to invest in new forms of power generation, and I think nuclear is our only option. However, if the government are investing, then they either need to own and operate the facilities, or they need to agree maximum prices if it's operated by a third party. What must not happen is that the government funds research and development and infrastructure, only for businesses to use that infrastructure to generate excessive profits. This of course means the government underwrites the risk of the facility being unsuccessful, or prices falling to such a level that the facility is not profitable.



When we talk about energy companies we need to differentiate between the different types of companies. The suppliers are having a hard time - their profits are constrained by the price cap hence several collapsing. The companies who extract oil and gas, and who run power stations, seem to be doing ok!


Yes, as we saw during the 2011 riots, it can only take a small spark to ignite a fire and this will soon spread. And it's not just fuel, it's food prices too. And if things get bad, it might be shortages (of fuel, leading to shortages of food). We've got industrial action taking place in multiple sectors. We have high levels of employment at the moment, this won't continue if businesses start to close due to rising costs and lack of custom. It all feels very unstable.

I am actually quite concerned about where we could end up this winter, or next winter. I hope whoever becomes PM in a couple of weeks time is equally concerned. Because in the short term we need more bill credits or cash handouts. Fiddling around with tax rates won't help much. And we all need to keep our fingers crossed for a mild winter. A really cold spell will be a disaster.

I'm equally concerned about what the winter holds for us. I remember the Bradford riots of 2001, hell at the time I lived slap bang in one of the epicentres. And it was a long drawn out build up, albeit for very different reasons, towards chaos breaking out. And whilst the atmosphere is nothing like those months leading up to the shocking events here as yet, I can already sense growing anxiety out and about.

Social anxiety if not addressed quickly will turn into fear, then anger, and then... Well who knows. But something has to be done because most people in this country will not be able to afford the kind of prices that the cap increase will invariably cause.

 

[Howardh]

My local has a new landlord, the old landlady retired a few weeks ago. He's already looking at cutting back the opening times to save both fuel and staff costs. His current plan is to close on Mondays and Tuesdays, open Wednesday and Thursday evenings only and open Friday - Sunday all day.

There are a few country pubs round here that do it already, example Yew Tree Inn is closed Mon/Tues and open the rest of the week. I agree, many pubs will cut down their hours depending on their busy times.

 

[DelayRepay]

I'm equally concerned about what the winter holds for us. I remember the Bradford riots of 2001, hell at the time I lived slap bang in one of the epicentres. And it was a long drawn out build up, albeit for very different reasons, towards chaos breaking out. And whilst the atmosphere is nothing like those months leading up to the shocking events here as yet, I can already sense growing anxiety out and about.

I lived in a part of South London that was affected by riots, although not in our immediate residential area. I'd only moved to London from Yorkshire a year earlier, and I remember feeling very scared as I tracked the riots on Twitter with my housemate. Those riots seemed to come from nowhere but the scary thing was the way the police lost control. I was frightened because I knew if anything bad happened the police wouldn't be able to help us.

 

[Yew]

It has been ever so.

Not to this scale, the level to which rampant speculation outweighs actual industry has skyrocketed over the last few years.