Whoops, wrong again.

Yes. There will be the inevitable increases before then anyway, but they will have to get the prices to 2017 levels in 2015, so they will just get there quicker and stay there for a couple of years. Not sure that the policy would even be legally enforceable.

Whilst it will hit the Big 6, they are most able to soak up any financial hardship for a couple of years; but many of the smaller players in the market will not be able to - so there will probably be another round of mergers and takeovers of the smaller companies, reducing competition and strengthening the oligopoly of the Big 6.

Has he thought about the staff in energy companies who can now expect not to get a pay rise for 20 months?

Having said that, Cameron's Energy Policy is not much better or well thought through.

not forgetting the inevitable big rise in 2017 when the price controls end.

As opposed to the demonised public service workers and the low paid (the two are one and the same on occasion) who haven't had a rise in years anyway?

The rising cost of utility bills is one reason why the cost of living has risen so much – to fund private profits.

We need to stop one group of workers saying that nothing can be done because of their wages when that affects another group of workers.

The real question should be why any worker should have seen their pay decrease over the last few years in relation to the cost of living, and what a government should do about that.

According to the ONS in November 2012, rises in the cost of living have outstripped wage rises for 12 straight years. Utility bills are a huge part of that problem.

In the last year or so, even posters on the [iTelegraph[/i forums have been noting that utility privatisation has damaged the domestic customer and not provided a great result. [iTelegraph[/i readers are muttering about renationalisation. That should tell people an awful lot.

I don't know if it was just Miliband's summary you listened to but Caroline Flint went into a bit more detail. The energy companies are positioning themselves in a similar way to the banks - too big to fail. There is a complete lack of transparency in the market, especially among those who are involved in production and distribution. The opportunity for fixing transfer pricing is undeniable and cannot be allowed to continue.

Rather than spelling out a firm policy, I think this more of a shot across the bows. The energy companies have been given plenty of opportunities to prove the market really is competitive and have failed miserably. I would't rule out windfall taxes or a forensic audit of the big players. And as far as the "what about a wagw freeze" argument, you'll get next to fookall sympathy from the vast majority of the population

Energy companies and their regulation are a joke. We had a gas bill today of c. £80 today of which just £18 was gas. The standing charge was £60!

For how long?

As the standing charge is obviously an annual charge, I don't get the point of your complaint, which implies you got charged that per month, when obvioulsy hat's not true

None of this is a new revelation is it ? Which begs the question of why Miliband didn't address it when he was Energy Minister in the previous government.......

Centrica have been doing a good amount of foot stomping and Violet-Elizabeth Bott "Thqueeming" these past few days starting with the threat of ruination for themselves if Labour's electioneering threat of a 20 month price freeze is ever introduced (lets not forget they have no power to do so at the moment) and in the media they have plenty of media reporters and proprietors willing to print ...

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24232292[/url
So clearly the threat there is that the 3.6% increase in profits in the domestic market that Centrica made last year simply by playing the energy purchase market would not be able to continue if their retail prices were capped for a period of 1 year and 8 months, I can't quite see that argument myself and I am no expert in the energy market but I have run a business and I have dealt with suppliers and end users and I know that the two things are very different, in a normal business, like one that is not essential to life, the end user controls your retail price by how much they are willing to pay, but its you who controls your supplier prices by simply not purchasing their stuff if they get too greedy - simplified its true but Centrica seem to be saying that they won't be able to do that any longer if Labours plans ever come to fruition, almost as if they will lose the ability to run a business.

They are also suggesting that they won't be able to continue with a planned £110billion investment in power stations but having read what Milliband said its fairly apparent that he is talking about a freeze in subsidies and not a stop to all subsidies, so the investment will continue albeit at the same rate for 20 months, surely ?

[urlhttp://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/431675/Centrica-bins-gas-store-plan[/url
And then, coincidentally, they throw a massive foot stomp by pulling out of two huge gas storage projects right now rather than waiting for the words "Ed Milliband PM" to be uttered with the argument that the government subsidy in the projects is not enough, the taxpayer will not pay enough for Centrica to use their own facilities (basically two big holes in the ground) to store gas.

Seems like their business is struggling along at the moment, could be a good time for Centrica to just hand British Gas back to the taxpayer and we'll get the job done without them and their threatening ways.

It begs no such question but given Angela Knight is now speaking on their behalf, it's no wonder the energy companies are trotting out that soundbite

So you don't think that the Energy Minister (of whatever government) shouldn't be looking at these kind of issues then ? How come it wasn't an issue for Miliband when he was in a position to do something about it, but now that it's seen as a vote winner it is suddenly a hot topic ?

Put it another way: should someone do something about the huge rises to utility bills or not? And if so, what?

And if not, how do you expect people to manage to live when, as the ONS reported last November, inflation has outstripped income rises for the past 12 years? What will have to give?

Mind, [url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/city-news/centrica-bonuses-fury-owners-british-1788935poor Centrica[/url.

One of the comments at the foot of this:

"two years ago paid £30 per month now I pay £200 per month that's where they are getting the millions from plebs like ME"

Another indicator of just why so many people are struggling to make ends meet.

Privatisation – what a great success story for the country's citizens.

Oh I don't disagree with the principle of it at all, my point is that like all politicians it is only an issue for them when there is something in it for them. In this particular instance its Miliband, but it could be said of most of the other new breed of political lightweights we seem to have in this country nowadays.

So in answer to your question - yes someone should do something about it. I'm just asking why nobody did anything about it a few years ago because this isn't exactly a new issue for concern is it ?

I'd like to think that there's been a bit of a genuine change, and realisation that 'something must be done' (sorry for the dreadful cliché) for ordinary people and this is just one possible measure.

It's an interesting move (announcement). Successive governments have either been ideologically in hock to big business or scared of them – which is why I don't think it's been tackled although, IIRC, Cameron had floated some sort of idea on the issue a year or so ago. Yet even this morning, Miliband has hit back at the [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24235688complaints from the energy companies[/url.

All rather unexpected.

The closest I've come to cheering a politician for as long as I can remember. It might well be too bold a move and the backlash might end up destroying him politically, but its better than giving up without any kind of fight.

One rather hopes that the the veiled threats from the energy companies might have a backlash – not least since they are, in many cases, foreign-owned, so you have an entire idea of furrin companies holding the country to ransom etc.

Doesn't make privatisation look any better either.

A large proportion of the price that energy consumers pay for energy is the environmental and carbon taxes that were introduced under the last Government to pay for the infrastructure changes that are needed to secure future energy supply. www.ovoenergy.com/energy-tariffs ... oney-goes/ Rather than regulating the markets in such a manner, they should be encouraging more competition and innovation in the sector and looking at alternative sources of energy. The only major economy that has seen energy prices for consumers fall in recent years in the USA, where they have put energy security as a major national priority. They have invested in other sources of energy such as fracking, and opened up markets to more competition.

A large proportion of the price that energy consumers pay for energy is the environmental and carbon taxes that were introduced under the last Government to pay for the infrastructure changes that are needed to secure future energy supply. www.ovoenergy.com/energy-tariffs ... oney-goes/ Rather than regulating the markets in such a manner, they should be encouraging more competition and innovation in the sector and looking at alternative sources of energy. The only major economy that has seen energy prices for consumers fall in recent years in the USA, where they have put energy security as a major national priority. They have invested in other sources of energy such as fracking, and opened up markets to more competition.

The thing is though that these foreign-owned companies are not in business to supply energy, they are in business to make money. That is their ultimate driving force.

If a freeze led to a situation where the cost of producing the energy is more than they can sell it for then it's highly probable that they would cease, or at least restrict, supply if that was the most economically benificial thing for them to do. Supplying energy is secondary to making (or not losing) money to them.

I'm not defending them for it and quite frankly they have manipulated prices for years through restricting supply but Miliband is playing a dangerous game talking about absolute freezes on prices. I don't see how he can make that work. I reckon we will eventually see a compromise where the energy companies margins are capped on a cost plus basis against wholesale market prices for a while. That's if Miliband ever gets into power of course.

Miliband was appointed in October 2008, I'd hazard a guess that there were other, far more pressing matters requiring government attention at the time. The energy companies have had plenty of time to offer more transparency in how they conduct their business, they have chosen to ignore them. Only now do they bleat about how unfair it all is

I'm still making my mind up about it all.
But I do recall reading some months back that, whilst the companies who sell us the energy aren't making huge profits, the companies they buy from (and largely own, IIRC) are really coining it in.
I need to read up on that.

Quote ="EHW"A large proportion of the price that energy consumers pay for energy is the environmental and carbon taxes that were introduced under the last Government to pay for the infrastructure changes that are needed to secure future energy supply. www.ovoenergy.com/energy-tariffs ... oney-goes/ Rather than regulating the markets in such a manner, they should be encouraging more competition and innovation in the sector and looking at alternative sources of energy. The only major economy that has seen energy prices for consumers fall in recent years in the USA, where they have put energy security as a major national priority. They have invested in other sources of energy such as fracking, and opened up markets to more competition.'" The problem with competition is that it only works up to a certain scale of project. Once you get to a certain point, there are only a small number of suppliers and you play the game by their rules. That's why I'm applauding Milliband for trying to take the energy companies on even though its probably doomed to failure.

Quote ="EHW"A large proportion of the price that energy consumers pay for energy is the environmental and carbon taxes that were introduced under the last Government to pay for the infrastructure changes that are needed to secure future energy supply. www.ovoenergy.com/energy-tariffs ... oney-goes/ Rather than regulating the markets in such a manner, they should be encouraging more competition and innovation in the sector and looking at alternative sources of energy. The only major economy that has seen energy prices for consumers fall in recent years in the USA, where they have put energy security as a major national priority. They have invested in other sources of energy such as fracking, and opened up markets to more competition.'" The problem with competition is that it only works up to a certain scale of project. Once you get to a certain point, there are only a small number of suppliers and you play the game by their rules. That's why I'm applauding Milliband for trying to take the energy companies on even though its probably doomed to failure.

not sure what you mean by that?

If you look on the price comparison sites, the smaller competitors in the market are regularly cheaper than the Big 6. Ecotricity (a 100% green/renewables energy supplier) have this week announced that they will shortly reduce their prices.

These companies need to be encouraged to be innovative and introduce new ideas, not restricted by more regulation and legislation.

Cross purposes I thought you meant increase competition for supply and distribution, not just the retail bit.