Here are some of the false claims SSE made to customers

Fined a record £10.5m.

According to Ofgem, here are some of the misleading statements made by SSE, which was today fined a record £10.5m for "numerous breaches of its obligations relating to telephone, in-store and doorstep sales activities":

- Getting customers to switch to a more expensive contract, whilst telling them they were moving to a cheaper one. From Ofgen via the Telegraph:

Mrs X had her energy supplied by one of SSE’s competitors. She was paying an annual bill of £1,600 for electricity and gas. In April 2010 she was visited by an SSE sales agent. The sales agent said Mrs X would only pay £1,423 with SSE. That was not true. In fact she was going to pay £1,734 per annum. As a result Mrs.X thought that she was going to save £177 but in fact she was put on a tariff that was £134 more expensive than her previous deal.

- Saying that other suppliers were making "false promises".

- Saying that other suppliers were putting their prices up.

- Offering to put customers of a "preferred customer tariff" but then charging them more for doing so.

- Suggesting SSE was following government guidelines which would make energy prices cheaper. Here's an extract from an SSE script:

What I’m here to do today is show you a government thing called deregulation which results in your energy prices being lowered by doing nothing at all.

But according to Ofgem:

This is inaccurate and misleading as there is no automatic reduction in energy prices owing to “a government thing called deregulation” or by the customer “doing nothing at all”.

“The level of fine reflects the seriousness and duration of breaches, the likely substantial harm that they have caused and the likely gain to SSE,” Ofgem said in a statement.

 
Photograph: Getty Images
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.