Politics: march of the zombies

By Richard North - August 12, 2022

This is getting insane, as The Times headlines: “Energy bills could top £5,000 by April as ministers hold crisis talks with energy bosses”.

The actual estimate takes us to £5,038 which puts the average monthly bill at around £420, although some users – in the very nature of averages – will be paying considerably more. Those on monthly payments could be paying well in excess of £600 during the winter.

But that is by no means the full extent of the bad news. According to the energy consultancy Auxilione, there is little energy companies can do to try to bring prices down. The consultancy expresses the view that there is “little appreciation [of] just how impossible that task is”.

However, tax avoider Nadhim Zahawi – in the few weeks he has left as chancellor – is keeping alive the prospect of hitting the generators with another tranche of windfall tax, unless they invest their profits in renewable energy.

That is the third bit of bad news as the chances of new renewable energy making a significant (or any) contribution to the current fuel crisis stands at the wrong side of zero. The man should have stuck to tax avoidance although, from some accounts, he’s not even very good at that.

Beyond that, though, there is nothing much else on offer. The Zombie trio of Johnson, Zahawi and Kwasi Modo seemed devoid of fresh ideas after their meeting in Downing Street with energy industry chiefs.

Actually, the only thing of substance to come out of the meeting is a big fat negative, with one industry source briefing on the talks saying it was “clear the windfall tax is not a preferred option for anyone – ministers or electricity companies”.

A Treasury spokesperson meanwhile contributed a statement indicating that the energy bosses had been treated to a statement which was so bleedin’ obvious as to be in a class of its own, being told that the market was “not always functioning for consumers”. No shit Sherlock, as they say.

Johnson’s contribution, apparently, was to venture that the extraordinarily high bills would “ultimately damage energy companies”, then telling the media after the meeting that it would be “a difficult winter for people across the UK”. Obvious doesn’t even begin to describe that offering.

In the time he has left, he tells us we can rest assured that the government “will keep urging the electricity sector to continue working on ways we can ease the cost-of-living pressures and to invest further and faster in British energy security”.

The Times suggested that the “striking message” at the meeting to the electricity industry was: “We can’t do anything, so have you got any ideas?” In normal times, the paper said, a prime minister who was told that millions of voters are about to become significantly poorer would want to at least give the impression of taking action. But Boris Johnson has continued to insist “that it will be for the next prime minister to make significant fiscal decisions”.

With that, we can only assume that we are where we thought we were – on our own. This bunch of zombie politicians isn’t going to help us, leading the Mirror to observe that the Tories and energy fat cats “have no plan”.

Needless to say, the energy companies will give us no quarter and when they send us bills, they will expect them to be paid, using all their considerable resources to force the issue.

Unsurprisingly, we see a report that nearly 100,000 people have joined the Don’t Pay campaign (now 102,595) to stop paying bills, taking what seems to be the entirely sensible move of participating in organised civil disobedience.

The movement is aiming to get one million households to cancel their direct debits as part of the “payment strike” and estimates this would deprive suppliers of £1.4 billion over the winter.

The trouble is that the “establishment” – whatever that might be – cannot let the plebs win. One can already see how the “elites” stick together as Mark Spencer, leader of the House of Commons, said it was wrong to “have a pop” at the earnings of chief executives.

When told that the boss of one British energy giant earns almost £11.5 million, Spencer said: “That seems like a very large figure to me, and certainly on my salary and to my constituents that feels like a large figure”. But he went on to say that, “In the context of things, actually, when there’s 65 million people in the country, it’s 30p, 20p a person, so I think actually there are bigger fish to fry here”.

And already the “Uncle Tom” solicitors and charities are warning that those wishing to take part could face legal consequences. There is no “protection in numbers”, they says: suppliers could apply for county court judgments (CCJs) or for warrants to disconnect supply.

Ultimately, suppliers can also force entry to the homes of customers in default to install prepayment meters which are more expensive. Failure to pay could also affect a customer’s credit rating, making borrowing harder, they say.

All of these issues, of course, militate against direct confrontation, favouring the indirect, “guerrilla warfare” approach. I’ve already started on my road to redemption with a letter to my own supplier, EDF, setting in motion the process of cancelling my standing order. Carefully non-confrontational, I’m publishing the text below, for anyone who wishes to use it as a template.

Reference your decision to increase my direct debit payments from £170 monthly to £316, I am writing to inform you that I can no longer guarantee that there will be sufficient funds in my bank account to meet your payment calls. Therefore, continuation of the direct debit arrangement presents a risk of an inadvertent default, with all the administrative complications that can ensue.

Accordingly, I am letting you know that I wish to discontinue the direct debit arrangement with immediate effect, and revert to monthly billing on a costs incurred basis, which, funds permitting, I propose to pay on line. I would thus be obliged if you could cancel my direct debit and cease to draw directly on my account.

I appreciate that your volume of correspondence might be high at this time, but I must ask you to put in effect this cancellation before the bill of 4 September becomes due.

You will appreciate that I must take measures to protect the integrity of my bank account and cannot accept a situation where your cash call might deprive me of the means of making equally pressing payments. I must reserve the right to retain control of my own bank account.

I would advise you therefore, that if I have not heard from you by 31 August, with an affirmation that you have cancelled my direct debit, I will unilaterally cancel the same and seek to pay by the other means specified.

Readers will note that I also am careful to indicate that I am not intending to withhold payment, but reverting back to making payments manually leaves that option open. It affords greater flexibility of response and reduces risk.

As to the next step, I expect my supplier to respond with the higher tariff, which usually goes with manual payments. This will trigger a complaint to Ofgem on the grounds of discrimination against people who are less able to pay. It will probably get me nowhere, but then it might go as far as the energy ombudsman.

In any event, if charges rise as expected, I see myself falling behind in payments and having to make an application for a payment plan. It is early days yet, and there will be plenty of opportunities to run with the system and see where it takes me.

This crisis is going to be dominating the news for some time yet and, before it is over, I suspect we will be a very different nation. We need to make sure it is.