THERESA May has denied that her plans for a cap on "rip-off" energy prices are a repeat of an old Labour policy derided by David Cameron as "Marxist".
The Prime Minister said 17 million households would benefit by up to £100 from the cap on poor value standard variable tariffs.
But Labour said there was no guarantee that the cap would stop energy prices going up next year, while energy companies said the move would distort the market and undermine moves to improve choice.
Speaking to Conservative General Election candidates in York, Mrs May said that last year's investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority had shown consumers were spending £1.4 billion a year more than they would in a truly competitive market.
"It's right, as does everyone sitting around the Cabinet table, for Government to take action to support working families," declared the Prime Minister.
"What we are talking about is a cap on energy prices that will be set by an independent regulator and that will be a reflection of the market. Crucially, it will be possible for that cap to move, and the independent regulator will set it.
"The key thing is that people are clearly paying too much for their energy bills today. Too many ordinary working families, too many vulnerable people, find themselves on tariffs that are above what they should be paying, and that's why we are taking action."
Mrs May insisted her plan was different from the energy freeze proposed by Labour in 2015, which led Mr Cameron to accuse the party's then leader Ed Miliband of wanting to live in a "Marxist universe".
Asked if she was herself now living in a Marxist universe, she replied: "No. First of all, we are Conservatives. We believe in free markets and competition but we want to see competition working...
"Ed Miliband didn't suggest a cap on energy prices. Ed Miliband suggested a freeze on energy prices which would have frozen them so that people paying above the odds would have continued paying above the odds, and crucially the prices would not have gone down. Under our cap prices will be able to come down," she added.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel