Energy Bills

[Yellow Bear]

5 hours ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, there's a health and safety issue that say a large office with 50 people or warehouse with 100, has to be kept at a certain temp, ?

IIRC the requirement is 16C at 1.6m AFL which must be attained by 2 hours post start of the first working day of the week.

I remember a large public service office in Stockport in about 73/4 where the union threatened to pull the staff out because it was too cold (January).  The space temperature was 18 at floor level and 19 at head hight of a seated person and this was demonstrated to the rep over several days.  At the time 18 was the maximum allowable by legislation.   he irony was I was called back in July  as it was too hot, which when tested gave the same figures

I am not sure whether is still in place but I suspect it ma be.

Edited September 2, 2022 by Yellow Bear

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

the requirement is 16C

Which is about 61 degrees.  You should save energy sticking to that in winter!  That would be found too cold by many people.

3 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

The space temperature was 18 at floor level and 19 at head hight

19 is about 67 degrees, which for me is a nice comfortable temperature in normal clothes. 

Before I retired, we were in an open plan office and the female staff (who seemed to feel 'wrong temperature' much more than males in my recollection) were complaining of being cold in the winter - when it was 24C (about 75 degrees) - but in summer at the same temperature they complained the air conditioning wasn't working and were too hot!

 

[Yellow Bear]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

in an open plan office and the female staff (who seemed to feel 'wrong temperature' much more than males in my recollection) were complaining of being cold in the winter - when it was 24C (about 75 degrees) - but in summer at the same temperature they complained the air conditioning wasn't working and were too hot!

Got it in one   -  it was still an ongoing problem when I retired.

[ditchman]

got my paraffin cooker and 10 ltres of paraffin for the cooker and oil lamps..........might never use it...but i wont be without me tea and hot food and light....i can watch the news on my laptop

jobs a gooden

[enfieldspares]

On 28/08/2022 at 09:44, Scully said:

There is no doubt that living today is grossly more expensive than when I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s, but I heard a woman complaining the other day about the power her tumble drier uses! 🤷‍♂️

I'd partly disagree. Yes prices were cheap but wages were low and, don't forget, there was no equal pay so many women earned less. Supposedly a new car cost less in 2022 that did (as a proportion of wages) a new car of similar equipment in 1962 and moreover the 2022 car will last longer.

A 1962 car was pretty much a rot box within five years....no galavanised bodies then! The same with a television and, for sure, my first computer in 1985 or so was a Pentium 166 with a 14" monitor and it cost £699! Today half that buys a laptop that exceeds the 1985 in all specification.

What was cheap was energy and water. But that's what you get when you privatise commodities. All prices save the cost of telephone calls have increased. Telephone calls however are cheaper. No more before 8.00am or before 1.00am pricing on landline calls.

[old man]

4 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

France hasn't privatised its infrastructure

France has far less of a domestic generation shortfall

France is not an island, and therefore has more options when it comes importing electricity

France has invested in Nuclear

French people like a good riot.

Mm, thanks. Mirrored my own thoughts but in my tiny world surely someone should be responsible for ensuring the country doesn't go bankrupt? Not forgetting the politicos don't give a flying fig other than for themselves. Sadly they also seem to take every opportunity to make all situations worse? Pushing back 50 years is likely not to go well this time around?

 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, enfieldspares said:

I'd partly disagree. Yes prices were cheap but wages were low and, don't forget, there was no equal pay so many women earned less. Supposedly a new car cost less in 2022 that did (as a proportion of wages) a new car of similar equipment in 1962 and moreover the 2022 car will last longer.

A 1962 car was pretty much a rot box within five years....no galavanised bodies then! The same with a television and, for sure, my first computer in 1985 or so was a Pentium 166 with a 14" monitor and it cost £699! Today half that buys a laptop that exceeds the 1985 in all specification.

What was cheap was energy and water. But that's what you get when you privatise commodities. All prices save the cost of telephone calls have increased. Telephone calls however are cheaper. No more before 8.00am or before 1.00am pricing on landline calls.

Fair enough. I’m not sure there were galvanised bodies then either. We have galvanised chassis now, and aluminium I believe, but you pay a premium for those. 
Many modern cars are scrapped due to software problems, whereas 60’s and 70’s cars could be worked on, but rust buckets nonetheless. 
I couldn’t afford a PC until the mid ‘90’s, and my first mobile was a Motorola in about 2002. 🤷‍♂️
I suppose much of it is relative. 

[Mice!]

Just seen this, you shouldn't be struggling to do anything if you're on 50K

[Wilts#Dave]

1 hour ago, Mice! said:

Just seen this, you shouldn't be struggling to do anything if you're on 50K

That all depends on one’s circumstances.
Obviously unlikely to be on the bread line but someone earning 50k may have vastly different outgoings to someone earning half that and have less disposable income even (if that person for example happens to be single with a small property with no dependants for example)…..with the unprecedented rises we’re facing of course someone earning 50k could potentially struggle too this winter!
That’s not to say if these rises are here to stay they couldn’t re-evaluate and change things drastically to lessen the struggle in the future. 
Whilst you could be right in a lot of situations, 50k isn’t big money on todays world I’m afraid with a family to support….area dependant too etc etc. 
 

[Scully]

13 hours ago, Mice! said:

Just seen this, you shouldn't be struggling to do anything if you're on 50K

What does that say for those who don't earn anywhere near that? 

[Mice!]

9 minutes ago, Scully said:

What does that say for those who don't earn anywhere near that? 

I looked at the comments and that's exactly what they were saying,  most were wishing they were on 50k.

12 hours ago, Wilts#Dave said:

Whilst you could be right in a lot of situations, 50k isn’t big money on todays world I’m afraid with a family to support….area dependant too etc etc. 

Area dependant maybe, but 50k is way beyond what a lot of households will ever bring in, so saying someone on 50k will struggle is ridiculous.

[JohnfromUK]

13 hours ago, Mice! said:

Just seen this, you shouldn't be struggling to do anything if you're on 50K

Depends.  Some on £50K will have made 'commitments' (mortgage, HP, subscriptions, possibly school fees, private medical insurances pension contributions etc.) that could effectively leave them very little not already committed. 

I suspect they will have to make some 'cutbacks' and that may hurt. 

Whilst those on really 'low' incomes and with special needs etc. (e.g. disabled, long term sick) will rightly get Gov't help, there isn't going to be help for all - it isn't feasible/possible.

Most of the population will have to make some savings (use less fuel, have less holidays, go out less, keep car a bit longer, few less 'luxuries' etc.) unless they already have a significant surplus of income over expenditure.  (very few people do as the tendency is to live as well as you can afford).

That is going to hurt pubs, restaurants, entertainment and other venues where spending is largely 'discretionary' as people will have less to spend on these things.

Edited September 3, 2022 by JohnfromUK

[Mice!]

17 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Depends.  Some on £50K will have made 'commitments' (mortgage, HP, subscriptions, possibly school fees, private medical insurances pension contributions etc.) that could effectively leave them very little not already committed. 

I suspect they will have to make some 'cutbacks' and that may hurt. 

Several jobs I worked I might have made 30k with o/t before tax, there will be people on minimum wage or just slightly more, enough to get no help who could only dream of that 50k even with combined salaries. 

So saying they may struggle on 50k shows just how out of touch the MPs really are, Starmer being Labour leader should certainly know better.

24 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Most of the population will have to make some savings (use less fuel, have less holidays, go out less, keep car a bit longer, few less 'luxuries' etc.) unless they already have a significant surplus of income over expenditure.  (very few people do as the tendency is to live as well as you can afford).

That is going to hurt pubs, restaurants, entertainment and other venues where spending is largely 'discretionary' as people will have less to spend on these things.

You would think so, but there's no sign of it happening as yet.

[Newbie to this]

18 minutes ago, Mice! said:

So saying they may struggle on 50k shows just how out of touch the MPs really are, Starmer being Labour leader should certainly know better.

Bit he is probably right. This will hit everyone, admittedly some harder than others. But some on 50k will already be stretched, the fact that others manage on far less is irrelevant. They still have to meet their commitments and the rise in the cost of living will hit them the same.

If you have no spare money at the end of the month, it doesn't matter if you earn 15k or 50k. Living paycheck to paycheck, is just that.

Edited September 3, 2022 by Newbie to this

[Scully]

28 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Depends.  Some on £50K will have made 'commitments' (mortgage, HP, subscriptions, possibly school fees, private medical insurances pension contributions etc.) that could effectively leave them very little not already committed. 

I suspect they will have to make some 'cutbacks' and that may hurt. 

Whilst those on really 'low' incomes and with special needs etc. (e.g. disabled, long term sick) will rightly get Gov't help, there isn't going to be help for all - it isn't feasible/possible.

Most of the population will have to make some savings (use less fuel, have less holidays, go out less, keep car a bit longer, few less 'luxuries' etc.) unless they already have a significant surplus of income over expenditure.  (very few people do as the tendency is to live as well as you can afford).

That is going to hurt pubs, restaurants, entertainment and other venues where spending is largely 'discretionary' as people will have less to spend on these things.

It’s already affecting some local pubs, with two closing in the last week. A great shame as they served good food. It remains to be seen whether they will re-open. Another is cutting back its business hours to cater for just weekends as mid week trade has taken a nose dive. 
The restaurant where OH works carries on regardless, as busy as ever; the quality of food and service there means their clientele mostly consists of those who are recession proof. 
It all has a knock on effect however, so time will tell. 

[oldypigeonpopper]

14 hours ago, Mice! said:

Just seen this, you shouldn't be struggling to do anything if you're on 50K

Perhaps he should try living on a pension, and the government minister quoting £49,000

Just now, oldypigeonpopper said:

Perhaps he should try living on a pension, and the government minister quoting £49,000

I keep thinking back to that wonderful prime minster David Cameron 🤔 quote, we are all in this together, Yea Right !!!

[Newbie to this]

38 minutes ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

I keep thinking back to that wonderful prime minster David Cameron 🤔 quote, we are all in this together, Yea Right !!!

I keep thinking back to that wonderful Chancellor Gordon Brown quote "no more boom and bust" 

Then using Tax Payer's money to bail out private businesses, that for all the years before were posting obscene profits. 

[Yellow Bear]

10 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

keep thinking back to that wonderful Chancellor Gordon Brown quote "no more boom and bust"

Ah yes   -  "the prudent chancellor"  who left the country bankrupt having robbed the pension funds and sold the gold reserve

Edited September 3, 2022 by Yellow Bear

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, Yellow Bear said:

Ah yes   -  "the prudent chancellor"  who left the country bankrupt having robbed the pension funds

and sold all of the gold at the bottom of the market.

[oldypigeonpopper]

2 hours ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Perhaps he should try living on a pension, and the government minister quoting £49,000

I keep thinking back to that wonderful prime minster David Cameron 🤔 quote, we are all in this together, Yea Right !!!

Oh I just read pensioners are getting £300 🤔? From October there's 4 monthly payments equal to £400 to supplement  energy costs but not seen how that's going to be paid, I am sure that won't be enough for families and young people trying to cope with high rents , 

1 hour ago, Yellow Bear said:

Ah yes   -  "the prudent chancellor"  who left the country bankrupt having robbed the pension funds and sold the gold reserve

Every time I see him on TV 🥊

[Dave-G]

Gordon Brown - with his tongue often visibly pushing out his cheek - I wonder if he did that deliberately to signify his comments were indeed tongue in cheek.

Edited September 3, 2022 by Dave-G

[Mungler]

Spectator post by Lola Sapola • 4 days ago

Every morning Mr Sapola switches on the BBC and it feels as if, every morning they are going on and on about the cost of living and interviewing an overweight woman with tattoos that have cost the equivalent of a year’s energy bills who says she needs to go to a food bank. If the BBC did care rather than just wanting to spread doom and gloom, they’d make some programmes that provide an analysis of how various different household’s energy costs are made up eg what percentage on hot water, what percentage on TVs/radios/phones and lap-tops, what percentage on washing clothes, what percentage on cooking. That might actually help families to work out what economies will be most effective . 

 

Indeed, this country needs to grow up. The government doesn’t have any money of it’s own - it has our money through taxation and what it doesn’t have it borrows and will claw back (through further taxation).

The government isn’t going to be paying anyones gas bill.

[JohnfromUK]

BBC seems these days to stand for "Burnhams Breakfast Call" because every morning about 7:45 when I am having my breakfast, they interview Andy Burnham on Radio 4 about how badly this, that, or the other Gov't minister/Dept is doing.

Today, it wasn't energy, it was the rail strike, where Burnham says that the Gov't needs to step in and tell the rail operating companies to sort out the strikes ......... removing their impossible demands for working practices changes presumably by giving in to the union 'demands'.

[Newbie to this]

32 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Spectator post by Lola Sapola • 4 days ago

Every morning Mr Sapola switches on the BBC and it feels as if, every morning they are going on and on about the cost of living and interviewing an overweight woman with tattoos that have cost the equivalent of a year’s energy bills who says she needs to go to a food bank. If the BBC did care rather than just wanting to spread doom and gloom, they’d make some programmes that provide an analysis of how various different household’s energy costs are made up eg what percentage on hot water, what percentage on TVs/radios/phones and lap-tops, what percentage on washing clothes, what percentage on cooking. That might actually help families to work out what economies will be most effective . 

 

Indeed, this country needs to grow up. The government doesn’t have any money of it’s own - it has our money through taxation and what it doesn’t have it borrows and will claw back (through further taxation).

The government isn’t going to be paying anyones gas bill.

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

Spectator post by Lola Sapola • 4 days ago

Every morning Mr Sapola switches on the BBC and it feels as if, every morning they are going on and on about the cost of living and interviewing an overweight woman with tattoos that have cost the equivalent of a year’s energy bills who says she needs to go to a food bank. If the BBC did care rather than just wanting to spread doom and gloom, they’d make some programmes that provide an analysis of how various different household’s energy costs are made up eg what percentage on hot water, what percentage on TVs/radios/phones and lap-tops, what percentage on washing clothes, what percentage on cooking. That might actually help families to work out what economies will be most effective . 

 

Indeed, this country needs to grow up. The government doesn’t have any money of it’s own - it has our money through taxation and what it doesn’t have it borrows and will claw back (through further taxation).

The government isn’t going to be paying anyones gas bill.

Very true, but it's a shame people need telling in the first place.