Too Much Energy Needed to Swap Tariffs!

We've heard from Chris Huhne at the Lib Dems conference today that energy companies are going to have to make it easier for consumers to spot cheaper deals and switch suppliers. Take our situation for example. We've been with e-on for nearly a year now - the deal was good at the time I took it out. They have written to me to say the deal I had with their SaveOnline 3 tariff is coming to an end and they are transferring me to their Energy Online tariff. This they will do automatically if I don't get in touch; as they say, "you don't need to do anything else, we'll take care of everything."

But it then says, if I don't want to renew, I should have a look at their website where they are sure there's a deal just right for me.

So I have a look, and there is one, namely SaveOnline 10, which seems just about the same as what I'm already on! So I ring them up and ask why they haven't suggested I go onto this tariff. Ah, well, they tell me, that would involve going on to a new contract and they are not allowed by the watchdog to tell me about it!

Either there is something very badly wrong with the current regulations or they are lying! Or maybe it's a bit more complex. Maybe they make the most attractive tariff a new contract, so they don't have to tell me about it. Then they can try to 'con' me by automatically moving me to a more expensive rate.

Whatever the truth of it is, something needs doing about all this! With my estimated consumption for a year, this is how the monthly figures work out according to the spreadsheet I have created in order to try to compare prices:

Current tariff (which I'm on at the moment):	£80.45
New tariff (that they will put me on if I don't do anything):	£96.83
Alternative tariff (according to their website):	£90.07

As Chris Huhne said today, "We want simpler tariffs." Indeed we do!

(sorry about the big gap above, but the nice blog editing program seems to want to put lots of extra lines in before my table; even though I delete them, it puts them straight back! The trials and tribulations of blogging!)

Birthday

It's my wife's birthday today and we began it with breakfast in bed - Buck's Fizz and croissants! Then we went up to London and on to the "London Duck Tour". If you've been around Central London you've probably seen it - an amphibious craft from the second world war, now painted yellow and a tourist ride around London. Two other modifications, they've put a roof on it and removed the machine gun from the bonnet!

The great thing about it is, not only does it tour round the roads of Central London, it also drives in to the river and we went from Vauxhall Bridge (where there is a slipway) up to Westminster Bridge and back. See photo below to prove it.

Then we had lunch in Strada at the Royal Festival Hall (with a little help from Tesco vouchers). Finally we walked back along the river to Tower Bridge, then to Fenchurch Street Station and the journey home.

A very pleasant day, rounded off with supper at home. We weren't very hungry after out 3 course lunch, but fried egg on toast fitted the bill nicely! And completely scuppered any last shred of my wife's diet today. But it is her birthday! Back to yoghurt and Ryvita tomorrow!




Westminster Bridge with County Hall (where I worked many years ago) and the London Eye.

Living Less Safely?

I went into Wlkinsons (other cheap shops are available) and bought a pair of cycle clips. I know you don't wear them if you're young and trendy and riding a bicycle, but if I don't use them, I manage to get grease and dirt onto my trouser leg from the cycle chain.

To my surprise, they aren't "cycle clips", they are "trouser bands". Nothing like a new name to make something (a bit) more fashionable!

But then I noticed the card they came on (see below). There are two cyclists, and NEITHER are wearing cycle helmets!

What with that AND the proposed abolition of "Sell by" dates, are "health & safety" a little on the back foot? Maybe life is becoming a little more exciting again!

Eating out

For our wedding anniversary we went out for a meal to a nice restaurant. Although it was Tuesday evening, most tables were taken and I think most (if not all) of the people had booked.

My wife had read an article about how people can't be without their mobile phones, even when eating out. So we looked around, and there they were. Quite a number of people had sat down, taken out their phones and placed them on the table next to the cutlery. What is this "I can't be without sight of my mobile phone for a minute" complex that so many of us seem to have? I'm sure they weren't all "doctors on call" or afraid the babysitter couldn't cope.

I must confess that we did have our phones in our pockets, but we had no contact with them during the meal at all - honest!

By the way, the chef is clearly taking the mickey on this wonderful county. Obviously he has seen The Only Way is Essex on the tele. On the dessert menu was

Essex rhubarb fool tart

Every word an insult!

Simple shopping made complicated

This shopping business is too much for us to understand!

My wife went into our local 99p shop, which has huge posters saying (not surprisingly) everything is 99p. So she bought two items and went to the till to be told the bill was £1.88.

How does that work? Confused, she asked for the receipt, and that's what it says, £1.88. It also says it was one item (which it wasn't, it was two) and she was served by a girl, which doesn't quite tie up with the man's name on the receipt!

But never mind, mustn't complain about a bargain!

Wedding anniversary

It's our forty second wedding anniversary today. After my wife's brilliant birthday card to me last month ( see www.ericgreymatters.blogspot.com/2011/07/birthday.html ), she
triumphed again with my anniversary card. I could have kicked myself that I didn't think of it ...

Here's the outside:

And here's the inside:

(Of course, you have to be a Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy fan to understand. If you're not, too bad!)

First of all, I must say that there's no justification for the riots that happened a fortnight or so ago. And the courts are right to come down hard on those arrested and found guilty. But people are now asking why it happened. Do the poor have a reason to at least protest in our country's current situation?

We are told by the Prime Minister that we must all "tighten our belts". But on the other hand, the government want to abolish the 50% income tax rate on income over £150,000 a year. Most (if not all) of those who caused the banking crisis were in that income bracket. The poor, who had nothing to do with the crash are suffering all kinds of cutbacks in welfare, benefits and so on.

Even for the young who are fortunate enough to be in work, mortgages are near impossible to get unless you have a whacking great deposit saved up, rents are hitting new highs, commuter costs (petrol and rail fares) just keep rising and let's not even start to talk about escalating fuel bills. Those who leave university are being saddled with great debts which are likely to hang over them for many years.

Patrick Collinson, the editor of the Guardian's Money section, wrote on Saturday that he would be the last person to condone the mindless destruction that we've seen recently, but adds,
if we step back a few paces, and we consider how we are abandoning that far larger, law-abiding, younger generation, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

============================

Meanwhile, in America ...

Warren Buffet, one of America's richest people, wrote in the New York Times last week about how little tax he pays. He said about his tax bill last year,

what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens averaged 36 percent.

He concludes,

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

Is it any different in the UK? I fear not. Those who are struggling to survive have many reasons to feel aggrieved. The question is this, will the government listen to them before there are more riots?