Skip to main content

Energy firms look to pre-empt Labour’s proposed freeze

Three of the big six energy firms look to capitalise on Miliband’s pledge to freeze prices, by offering the chance to fix bills until 2017

Labour says long-term fixed plans prove energy suppliers can freeze prices

Earlier this week at the Labour party’s conference in Brighton, Labour leader Ed Miliband said that should he get into power, he would aim to break up the big six energy suppliers and freeze bills for 20 months.

The conference also saw the Labour party pledge to dismantle energy regulator Ofgem and replace it with a more proactive organisation.

npower asks ‘Why wait for Ed?’

So far, energy firms have sought to take advantage of this announcement. npower was first to do so, highlighting an offer for consumers to freeze their bills for the next four years.

The company satirised the Labour leader’s pledge with its campaign, telling customers “Why wait for Ed? Fix your energy prices until March 2017.”

Other companies have also bought into this chance to promote their long-term fixed price plans with both ScottishPower and EDF advertising fixed price deals.

Labour bites back

Labour has accused the suppliers of rebranding deals that were already on the market.

It said EDF’s deal has been available to its customers since July, while ScottishPower has simply repackaged an existing offer. npower’s most heavily advertised deal has been available since the start of September.

The Labour party added that these offers were evidence that energy firms had been scaremongering with regards to their claims of energy shortages and potential blackouts.

Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary Caroline Flint said: “The fact that three of the big six energy companies are now advertising deals to let people fix their energy bills until 2016 or 2017 shows that all the warnings about blackouts were nothing more than scaremongering.

“Labour reforms and price freeze will make sure consumers get a fair deal.”

Read more

Energy price freeze strikes chord with Tories

Energy prices could be ‘final nail in the coffin’ for Brits’ finances

  • Chris F

    I have a pre-payment gas meter with British Gas and took the option for no price rises for two years. I found out a couple of months later they were charging me 47p a day extra for taking up the offer!!

  • Keith Coles

    Its not a rule. Its a law. I know it seems cruel to restrain them to some but its got to be better than points on your licence.

    • Stephen Kirkwood

      It’s is not a law just good driving advice

  • anne dog owner

    Rule 98 You MUST secure your load. Includes ANIMALS! LAW.

  • Penny Achour

    I had a cat that used to curl up
    in the footwell at the front whilst the other stayed in the carrier crying. That was until she went under my partners feet temporarily blocking the brake and clutch 😳
    Fortunately I was there to pull her out but I’m sure there were times when I wasn’t 😐

  • susan carter

    Years ago I was transporting a cat, in a cat carrier, to the vet. He managed to escape & get under my brake pedal. I was petrified that I’d have to squash him if I needed to brake hard. I managed to pull over, pop him back into the carrier & place that into the boot. We arrived safe & it was a lesson learnt.

  • tuppennyblue

    And what about children? Three squalling brats in the back of a car is definitely a danger to other road users, but insurance companies don’t seem to consider this in their bizarre formulae for calculating premiums.

    • John Parkin

      Children have to be restrained in special seats, i knew some sociopath would start bleeting that their animal should be exempt, probably the same fools who don’t pick up after their dogs unless someone is watching.

      • David Thomas

        I have a little dog,he don’t keep asking (are we nearly there yet) when we go on day trips to the coast,and I Do always pick up after him,no matter if someone’s watching or not,do you pick sweet papers,crisp bags and dropped ice cream up after your brats?

        • John Parkin

          Lol, you won’t win this one, i don’t have any kids.
          All dog owners claim they pick up, in truth the few that do throw the bag down at the first chance, it’s time they started banning dogs for anyone who does not have sufficient land to keep them on without impacting on other people.
          Also anyone who won’t keep a dog restrained should forfeit things like mail delivery, bin collection, milk delivery and meter readings.

          • Steven Luckshaw

            Hmmm, not exactly fair, balanced or well reasoned is it John? Children only need to be “restrained” until they are 12! If you ask anyone who has had both children and dogs (like me) I’m sure many would say the dogs were much easier to “train”, and generally much better behaved. Maybe worth thinking about for a second or two?

          • John Parkin

            You do realize that children old enough to go without a special seat have to wear a seat belt the same as everyone else?

  • David Salways-Wright

    Have you deliberately misquoted Rule 57 of the Highway Code? It does not contain the word “must”. Only those rules using “must” are legally binding, the others may be used in court to establish liability in the event of an accident.

  • fiona P

    Its a shame walkers don’t walk on the correct side of a country lane and horse riders don’t ride 2 abreast. They never get stopped by the police and that’s in the highway code. Just because its in the high way code does not make it a law.It states whether its a law or an advisory.

  • barry drake

    I think the new breed aggressive cyclists are much more at risk in Bournemouth where I reside as they speed about unrestrained in their skintight lycras (just the men that is) whilst I in a car can barely reach walking pace for much of the time. Do you really think the Police,Insurers etc. care about your safety? No it’s all to do with money on their part. Quick to issue fines or take the Premium!

  • Brian R

    The number of times I have heard mention of friends and acquaintances
    pets causing or contributing to an accident are legion. There is hardly a day
    goes by without this being top of the days agenda. Seriously, does it really
    happen as an insurance company would suggest or is it yet more social conditioning
    softening us up for an increase in costs if, “Are you a pet owner or have
    been in the last 5 years”. Call me cynical but I’ve always said insurers
    are spivs and they will never run out of ways to charge more and deliver less.