So we'll be bailing out the big energy companies if they crash: how likely is it anyway?

Keeping the flame alive.

As part of a team building exercise in my previous workplace, I once tried tight rope walking. Just to make the experience more exciting, I decided to do the dead-fall – something I had mastered at theatre workshops while in university – knowing there was a safety net below to catch me.

Had it not been for that safety net, I would have never tight rope walked in the first place – leave alone try the crowd pleasing antic. But my risky decision didn’t harm me or anyone around me.

Under a revised plan drawn up by the Government to avoid “market chaos”, UK consumers may be on the hook for a £4bn safety net if any of the six leading energy suppliers see a downfall.

Energy secretary Ed Davey is looking at a quick intervention with “adequate protection” if any of the ‘Big Six’ go out of business. Fair enough, but is it?

In a capitalist society such as the one we live in today, is it morally correct to ensure a safety net for corporates – such as big energy companies – to take risky decisions that could negatively affect millions in the UK market?

If the government is worried about any of these companies going out of business, the one thing it should not do is make it clear that it would be bailed out in case it does crash – providing the company with almost an incentive not to work towards keeping itself afloat.

The Big Six in the UK energy sector refer to German-owned E.On, Npower with its German parent company (RWE), France’s EDF, British Gas, Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) and Scottish Power.

Competition is imperative to a company performing well. A safety net only reduces the need or will to compete.

A big energy company crashing would be unlike the crash of the banking sector where the crisis risked consumers losing their lives’ savings and government bail outs were imperative.

If a big energy company does go bust, the way it would affect a regular householder would be to find a new energy supplier. Would it be any more complicated than that? Why not let the private sector undertake the rescue?

Half of the Big Six are foreign owned companies, and it could perhaps make sense to draw up plans for the government to separate UK subsidiaries from foreign parents.

However, what are the chances of a big energy company on the whole going under in the first place? Highly unlikely – as Ed Davey himself accepts. Could this be anything more than a threat of nationalisation?

In January this year, a new survey by uSwitch found significant differences between satisfaction in the UK with smaller energy suppliers and the ‘Big Six’. EDF and Npower ranked at the bottom of the survey while Good Energy, the UK’s only 100 per cent renewable energy company, owned top spot.

Of the "Big Six", only two – E.ON and SSE – came in the top ten, sharing ninth place, whereas British Gas and ScottishPower came joint 11th.

Is it really justified, then, that consumers collectively face higher costs and pay up to almost £4bn to save any of the "Big Six" crashing when the satisfaction levels may not be up to mark?

Some may argue it will be better if the costs of the bail out came out of the profits of the energy firms instead of heightening the prices for householders. But ultimately it would amount to the same thing.

Albert Camus said all that he knew about morality and obligations he owed to football. Taking his cue, one thing we do know about the rules of any game is winning –not losing – should be rewarded. By that respect, the Big Six should fight to keep their heads up in stormy times instead of looking for that parachute they know the government is already making for them. And an expensive one at that.  

Photograph: Getty Images

Meghna Mukerjee is a reporter at Retail Banker International

Getty
Show Hide image

In your 30s? You missed out on £26,000 and you're not even protesting

The 1980s kids seem resigned to their fate - for now. 

Imagine you’re in your thirties, and you’re renting in a shared house, on roughly the same pay you earned five years ago. Now imagine you have a friend, also in their thirties. This friend owns their own home, gets pay rises every year and has a more generous pension to beat. In fact, they are twice as rich as you. 

When you try to talk about how worried you are about your financial situation, the friend shrugs and says: “I was in that situation too.”

Un-friend, right? But this is, in fact, reality. A study from the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that Brits in their early thirties have a median wealth of £27,000. But ten years ago, a thirty something had £53,000. In other words, that unbearable friend is just someone exactly the same as you, who is now in their forties. 

Not only do Brits born in the early 1980s have half the wealth they would have had if they were born in the 1970s, but they are the first generation to be in this position since World War II.  According to the IFS study, each cohort has got progressively richer. But then, just as the 1980s kids were reaching adulthood, a couple of things happened at once.

House prices raced ahead of wages. Employers made pensions less generous. And, at the crucial point that the 1980s kids were finding their feet in the jobs market, the recession struck. The 1980s kids didn’t manage to buy homes in time to take advantage of low mortgage rates. Instead, they are stuck paying increasing amounts of rent. 

If the wealth distribution between someone in their 30s and someone in their 40s is stark, this is only the starting point in intergenerational inequality. The IFS expects pensioners’ incomes to race ahead of workers in the coming decade. 

So why, given this unprecedented reversal in fortunes, are Brits in their early thirties not marching in the streets? Why are they not burning tyres outside the Treasury while shouting: “Give us out £26k back?” 

The obvious fact that no one is going to be protesting their granny’s good fortune aside, it seems one reason for the 1980s kids’ resignation is they are still in denial. One thirty something wrote to The Staggers that the idea of being able to buy a house had become too abstract to worry about. Instead:

“You just try and get through this month and then worry about next month, which is probably self-defeating, but I think it's quite tough to get in the mindset that you're going to put something by so maybe in 10 years you can buy a shoebox a two-hour train ride from where you actually want to be.”

Another reflected that “people keep saying ‘something will turn up’”.

The Staggers turned to our resident thirty something, Yo Zushi, for his thoughts. He agreed with the IFS analysis that the recession mattered:

"We were spoiled by an artificially inflated balloon of cheap credit and growing up was something you did… later. Then the crash came in 2007-2008, and it became something we couldn’t afford to do. 

I would have got round to becoming comfortably off, I tell myself, had I been given another ten years of amoral capitalist boom to do so. Many of those who were born in the early 1970s drifted along, took a nap and woke up in possession of a house, all mod cons and a decent-paying job. But we slightly younger Gen X-ers followed in their slipstream and somehow fell off the edge. Oh well. "

Will the inertia of the1980s kids last? Perhaps – but Zushi sees in the support for Jeremy Corbyn, a swell of feeling at last. “Our lack of access to the life we were promised in our teens has woken many of us up to why things suck. That’s a good thing. 

“And now we have Corbyn to help sort it all out. That’s not meant sarcastically – I really think he’ll do it.”