The “hobby horse” of Andy Burnham’s transition policy chief is a “free basic energy” subsidy which would cost tens of billions of pounds per year. Here we go again…
Figures who have worked with ex-energy and housing minister Miatta Fahnbulleh expect her to revive a policy she championed at the New Economics Foundation, of which she was chief executive for seven years – a “rising block tariff” that subsidises households’ basic energy needs. Fahnbulleh is writing the “blueprint for government” for Andy right now…
This is the policy:
- Free or heavily discounted energy for a “essential” first block, with a premium price on higher usage.
- The cheap block set at a forced price of 50% below ‘pre-crisis levels’; premium tiers priced up to 30% above those levels.
- Extra free-energy allowances per child and per disabled resident.
- Benefit claimants exempted from the top tariff entirely.
- An “enhanced social tariff” giving 10 million households their energy for free.
- A supplier-dispatched “retrofit coordinator” sent round whenever a household tips into the premium band.
The NEF says this costs £10 billion per year with the social tariff and scrapping standing charges at an additional £5.7 billion per year. Half of the proposals aren’t costed and and the majority of the scheme is ‘pegged’ nonsensically to windfall tax revenue…
The NEF’s own report says it is “wary” of funding the scheme from windfall taxes – which it claims will cover the revenue – and admits revenues “may well decline in future.” The likely cost is well over £20 billion per year from general taxation or borrowing…
In a Politico puff profile of Fahnbulleh her former colleagues spoke out:
‘One industry figure and one former government official, both granted anonymity to discuss their experience working with Fahnbulleh, expect her to push proposals, long discussed when she was an energy minister and before that at NEF, to subsidize basic energy needs. That policy, called a rising block tariff, is “a truly, truly dreadful idea,” grouched the energy industry figure. “But that’s her hobby horse.”’
It is a revelation that this was discussed in government. Fahnbulleh has personally trumpeted the policy plus numerous other multi-billion spending commitments:
Andy Burnham has previously backed Miatta Fahnbulleh’s campaign to increase benefit spending by £90 billion. Will sounder voices in Team Burnham have the energy to oppose this latest project?
Statement by Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief of Associated Newspapers Limited, following Harry’s loss in court today:
“Prince Harry wrote a sad book which boasted about his killing of 25 Taliban, his drug-taking and, in cringe-making detail, how he lost his virginity. There isn’t a laundry in the cosmos big enough to wash all the dirty linen he has aired about his own family. For him, to complain about HIS privacy being invaded takes, not just the biscuit, but the whole tin. Poor Harry. I feel sorry for the way a confused and angry young man has been drawn into this case. The bitter irony is that his mother, Diana, liked the Mail. We were her paper. We took her side in her acrimonious break up with Charles. She and I would speak and meet. The Mail’s superb royal reporter was her friend and confidante. The truth is that this trumped-up action – which has cost well over £50 million and wasted a huge amount of valuable court time – should never have been brought to trial. That it did, raises profoundly disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession. Today’s verdict is not just a victory for Associated’s magnificent journalists – several of whom have had a terrible toll imposed on their health and lives – but a free press generally. Make no mistake. This was a conspiracy, supported by Hacked Off, to destroy a paper. Financed by the orgy-loving, racist Max Mosley and involving the actor Hugh Grant, it was also a sinister bid to resuscitate Leveson Two and impose statutory regulation on the press which, even now, is rearing its ugly head in Labour’s Media Green Paper.”
