Regulation can't fix the energy industry

Let's stop pretending it can.

Last week's changes to the energy billing regulations, represent the biggest regulatory change experienced by the industry since privatisation. In fact, they are some of the biggest changes to any regulation, in any industry, and are all the more ground-breaking for directly affecting the way that energy companies sell their products to the consumer. At first glance , this was a simple case of victory for consumers over the corporate world, but the situation is more complex. After all, there's something inherently wrong with the idea of a predominantly consumer "victory" - the right balance of market forces and regulation ought to result in a capitalism that works equally in the interests of producer and consumer. If that is not the case, then it's a clear indicator that something has gone wrong, and that the balance needs to be restored.

These new regulations will go some way towards achieving  that, but they certainly shouldn't be seen as a happy outcome. The costs of any regulation are commonly passed to the consumer, and these changes will be no exception. No regulation is ever set in stone, however, and business leaders in the utilities industry should not give up trying to make theirs the sort of industry that requires less regulation, and not more. Leaders in other regulated industries should also take note. There will be much to learn from how the industry deal with its new regulatory environment, but there is also much to learn from the circumstances that led to such drastic action.

Therefore, it makes sense to examine why the regulator felt compelled to act in such drastic fashion. Regulation may seem to be the lesser of two evils, but the point is that the industry's relationship with its customers should never have deteriorated to the point where that was the case. For business leaders in the utilities industry, the lesser evil really ought to be an investment in building a productive relationship - fuelled by more in-depth insights - with their customers. Indeed, businesses in any regulated industry ought to take this attitude. A more proactive approach to soliciting customer opinion means that management are aware of the strength of customer demand say, for simpler pricing.  The investment required to do so, and the potential losses incurred, will almost always be offset in the long term; if industry practices can produce satisfied customers, then they will have a satisfied regulator as well.

At first glance, it may appear that energy companies have simply played by the letter of the law, but it's really more a case of them forgetting that their fight is with each other, and not with the regulator. There's a lack of competition,  but that's not to say that there are too few energy companies for market forces to be effective - the UK telecoms industry is one of the best in the world, and has fewer major players than the energy market. Rather, energy industry leaders have come to focus on the regulator, and not their competitors. Accordingly, regulators should see promoting competition as a priority, and a huge part of that comes from seeing the voice of the customer as a business resource, not just a matter for the customer complaints department. In a sector with an ethic of genuine competition,  those companies that do not heed the wishes of their customers do not last long. For example, the OFT rarely chastises retailers for unreasonable pricing - consumers do a very good job of that themselves.

I have written previously for this magazine of how we as a public have a vital part to play in building better businesses, and the energy industry is no exception. While it may form a relatively mundane part of our consumer experience, it is nonetheless a costly one, and we shouldn't allow ourselves to be distracted from making our voices heard. Energy companies for their part ought to make a  greater effort to listen, and to act upon what they hear; not only might they find advantages for their business, but the regulators would no longer have to interfere so strongly in the industry. It is right that  the state should step in when business practices within an industry leave consumers with few good options. However, it is the proper function of businesses to provide consumers with as many good options as possible, and that is the case in regulated industries as much as it is in those elsewhere in the economy. If customers are not forthcoming with their opinions then business leaders should do more to obtain their input - surely companies would rather meet the demands of their customers, rather than leaving it to the regulator to do so?

Photograph: Getty Images

Claire Richardson is VP at Verint

Getty
Show Hide image

Chuka Umunna calls for "solidarity" among Labour MPs, whoever is voted leader

The full text of shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna's speech to Policy Network on election-winning ideas for Labour's future, and the weaknesses of the New Labour project.

There has never been an easy time to be a social democrat (or “democratic socialist” as we sometimes call ourselves in Britain). Whereas the right can demonise the poor and extol the virtues of the market, and the hard left can demonise the market and extol the role of the state, our position of constraining the domination of markets and reforming the state is, by definition, more complex.

It is nonetheless the case that social democracy has a historic responsibility, in every generation, to renew democracy and preserve a civic culture. This is achieved not through soundbites and slogans, but through the hard-headed development of a progressive politics that reconciles liberty and democracy, new comers and locals to our communities, business and workers, in a common life that preserves security, prosperity and peace.  This historic mission is all the more urgent now and my determination that we succeed has grown not weakened since our election defeat last May.

But, in order to be heard, it is necessary to make balanced and reasonable argument that both animates and inspires our movement, and which is popular and plausible with the people.  The first is pre-requisite to the second; and there is no choice to be made between your party’s fundamental principles and electability. They are mutually dependent - you cannot do one without the other.

We are in the midst of choosing a new leader and it is clear to anyone who has watched the UK Labour Party leadership election this summer that amongst a significant number there is a profound rage against Third Way politics – as pursued by the likes of Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Gerhard Schröder and others - as a rejection of our fundamental values.

In the UK there is a view that New Labour accepted an uncritical accommodation with global capital that widened inequality, weakened organised labour and we were too close to the US Republicans and too far from the European left.

I do not believe this is fair, not least because we rescued many of our public services from the scrap heap when we came to office in 1997 and there were very significant achievements  we should celebrate.  New Labour renewed our National Health Service in a fundamental way; we built new schools and improved existing ones; we set up new children’s centres all over the country; we brought in a National Minimum Wage; we worked with others to bring peace to Northern Ireland; we introduced civil partnerships.  Just some of our achievements.

However, though we may take issue with the critique, I do not think we can simply dismiss out of hand those who hold critical views of New Labour. Like any government, the New Labour administration made mistakes - it could and should have achieved more, and done more to challenge the Right’s assumptions about the world. In the end, it is not unreasonable to be ambitious for what your party in government can achieve in building greater equality, liberty, democracy and sustainability. It is far better we acknowledge, not reject, this ambition for a better world, as we seek to forge a new politics of the common good fit for the future.

Realising our values in office has been disrupted by globalisation and the surge of technological forces that are displacing and reshaping industry after industry.

Some argue that globalisation as an ideological construct of the right. But we must recognise that we live in an increasingly integrated world in which markets have led to an unprecedented participation of excluded people in prosperity, a rise in living standards for hundreds of millions  of people and a literacy unprecedented in human history – this is particularly so in emerging economies like my father’s native Nigeria. And the internet has led to a level of accountability that has disturbed elites.

Yet, this has been combined with a concentration of ownership that needs to be challenged, of a subordination of politics that requires creative rather than reactive thinking, and these global forces have exacerbated inequalities as well as helped reduce poverty.

So it is important that we understand the sheer scale and impact of new technologies. At the moment we are engaged in a debate about Uber and its threat to one of the last vestiges of vocational labour markets left in London, those of the black taxi cabs and their attainment of 'The Knowledge'. But the reality is that within the next decade there will be the emergence of driverless cars so we have to intensify our exploration of how to support people in a knowledge economy and the realities of lifelong learning, as well as lifelong teaching. As people live longer we will have to think about how to engage them constructively in work and teaching in new ways.

Once again, I'm addressing all of this, Social Democracy requires a balanced view that domesticates the destructive energy of capital while recognising its creative energy, that recognises the need for new skills rather than simply the protection of old ones. A Social Democracy that recognises that internationalism requires co-operation between states and not a zero sum game that protectionism would encourage.

Above all, Social Democratic politics must recognise the importance of place, of the resources to be found in the local through which the pressures of globalisation can be mediated and shaped. Our job is to shape the future and neither to accept it as a passive fate nor to indulge the fantasy that we can dominate it but to work with the grain of change in order to renew our tradition, recognising the creativity of the workforce, the benefits of democracy and the importance of building a common life.  Sources of value are to be found in local traditions and institutions.

This also requires a recognition that though demonstration and protest are important,; but relationships and conversations are a far more effective way of building a movement for political change.

One of the huge weaknesses of New Labour was in its reliance on mobilisation from the centre rather than organising. It therefore allowed itself to be characterised as an elite project with wide popular support but it did not build a base for its support within the party across the country, and it did not develop leaders from the communities it represented. It was strong on policy but weak on strengthening democratic politics, particularly Labour politics.

Over half a million people are now members, supporters or affiliated supporters of our party, with hundreds of thousands joining in the last few weeks. Some have joined in order to thwart the pursuit of Labour values but many more have joined to further the pursuit of those values, including lots of young people. At a time when so many are walking away from centre left parties across the Western world and many young people do not vote let alone join a party, this is surely something to celebrate.

So it is vital that we now embrace our new joiners and harness the energy they can bring to renewing Labour’s connection with the people. First, we must help as many them as possible to become doorstep activists for our politics. Second, I have long argued UK Labour should campaign and organise not only to win elections but to affect tangible change through local community campaigns. We brought Arnie Graf, the Chicago community organiser who mentored President Obama in his early years, over from the U.S. to help teach us how to community organise more effectively. We should bring Arnie back over to finish the job and help empower our new joiners to be the change they want to see in every community – we need to build on the links they have with local groups and organisations.

I mentioned at the beginning that in every generation Social Democracy is besieged from left and right but the achievements of each generation are defined by the strength of a complex political tradition that strengthens solidarity through protecting democracy and liberty, a role for the state and the market and seeks to shape the future through an inclusive politics. Solidarity is key which is why we must accept the result of our contest when it comes and support our new leader in developing an agenda that can return Labour to office.

Yes, these are troubled times for social democrats. All over Europe there is a sense among our traditional voters that we are remote and do not share their concerns or represent their interests or values.  There is surge of support for populist right wing parties from Denmark to France, of more left wing parties in Greece and Spain and in Britain too. There is renewal of imperial politics in Russia, the murderous and abhorrent regime of ISIL in the Middle East, volatility in the Chinese economy and in Europe a flow of immigration that causes fear and anxiety.

But, the task of Social Democracy in our time is to fashion a politics of hope that can bring together divided populations around justice, peace and prosperity so that we can govern ourselves democratically. We have seen worse than this and weathered the storm. I am looking forward, with great optimism to be being part of a generation that renews our relevance and popularity in the years to come.

Chuka Umunna is the shadow business secretary and the Labour MP for Streatham.