‘I can’t sleep’: the small business owners struggling to pay energy bills.

D

DoggedWalker

Well-Known Forumite
Theresa Green said:
Hissing Sid


All those cretins who supported privatising the:

Gas
Railways
Telephone
Water
Electricity

And made about three days worth of services in money when they eventually sold their shares

You should complain very loudly

To the face in your mirror
Click to expand...
Actually, I’d say that privatisation of gas & electricity has largely been a good thing for consumers. Competition among providers has previously meant that costs are lower. This current crisis isn’t caused by price gouging, it’s driven by the wholesale price being incredibly high, state owned operators would be in no different a position.

Besides, when has anything ran by the state functioned well/been cost effective?
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
DoggedWalker said:
Actually, I’d say that privatisation of gas & electricity has largely been a good thing for consumers. Competition among providers has previously meant that costs are lower. This current crisis isn’t caused by price gouging, it’s driven by the wholesale price being incredibly high, state owned operators would be in no different a position.

Besides, when has anything ran by the state functioned well/been cost effective?
Click to expand...
Private firms aren't necessarily more efficient, just more ruthless. No reason not to have private but keep a state one to keep them in check.
 
G

gilesjuk

Well-Known Forumite
The obscene profits are being made in the production and generation. Not in the supply. In fact, many suppliers are losing money while their parent companies are making 40%+ margins on the generation. So unfortunately the competition is not in the right area.
 
gilbert grape

gilbert grape

Well-Known Forumite
As a follower of grass roots sport and, in particular, football - I've seen a few articles on clubs considering having to change routine, just to survive!
Kicking off at 2PM over Winter to avoid using floodlights is one suggestion and now a reality. Most people fit their recreation around work and family life and, until this happens, I'm not sure if it will have a negative or positive effect? Lots of people work Saturdays until getting off for their Saturday fix and if that hour time difference means more people can't go it could well cost clubs in lost admission. Such uncertainty all round!
 
joshua

joshua

Well-Known Forumite
Remember the Covid adverts.
At first they tried to use persuasion and information, then they did coercion and shaming then they did mandatory lockdown backed by full force of law.

In the coming winter, they will first have adverts telling us to switch off lights and appliances at 6.00 - 9.00 pm so that the nation can get through this together, then they will start switching off street/motorway lights early, then they will start intermittent emergency blackouts for an hour here and there outside the main cities but not officially announced.
Then they will start with mandatory curfews, businesses must close to customers by 5.00 pm and lights off on the high street by 6.00 pm. Then they will start with official rolling blackouts with pre announced times like you said and that will be done through smart meters and consumers will have no choice..
 
proactive

proactive

Enjoying a drop of red.
joshua said:
Remember the Covid adverts.
At first they tried to use persuasion and information, then they did coercion and shaming then they did mandatory lockdown backed by full force of law.

In the coming winter, they will first have adverts telling us to switch off lights and appliances at 6.00 - 9.00 pm so that the nation can get through this together, then they will start switching off street/motorway lights early, then they will start intermittent emergency blackouts for an hour here and there outside the main cities but not officially announced.
Then they will start with mandatory curfews, businesses must close to customers by 5.00 pm and lights off on the high street by 6.00 pm. Then they will start with official rolling blackouts with pre announced times like you said and that will be done through smart meters and consumers will have no choice..
Click to expand...
PMSL.

I really wouldn't worry about that. Putin will have nuked us all before we get there. Those that survive can get light and heating from the gentle glow of the fallout.
 
Thehooperman

Thehooperman

Well-Known Forumite
gilbert grape said:
As a follower of grass roots sport and, in particular, football - I've seen a few articles on clubs considering having to change routine, just to survive!
Kicking off at 2PM over Winter to avoid using floodlights is one suggestion and now a reality. Most people fit their recreation around work and family life and, until this happens, I'm not sure if it will have a negative or positive effect? Lots of people work Saturdays until getting off for their Saturday fix and if that hour time difference means more people can't go it could well cost clubs in lost admission. Such uncertainty all round!
Click to expand...

Anyone working on Saturday will probably still be at work at 15.00 unless they're only doing mornings so I don't see 14.00 kick off as being a problem to be honest

Also kicking off at 14.00 may allow people to attend the game and still have time to get home, get changed before going out for the evening.
 
G

gilesjuk

Well-Known Forumite
tek-monkey said:
Considering how much we pay the rail firms anyway its hard to justify not nationalising them.
Click to expand...

When we were in the EU were had to provide private companies access to the railway network. So nationalising all services would have gone against that.

"Thus in 1991 EU Directive 91/440 was created to make it a legal requirement for independent companies to be able to apply for non-discriminatory track access (running powers) on a European Union country's track.[3]"

"The aims of the directive are to create a more efficient rail network by creating greater competition. To achieve this aim member states are required to ensure that organisations operating the infrastructure (track, signalling etc.), and those operating services (trains) are separate and run on a commercial basis.[note 4] Additionally railway companies from all member states are allowed to run services on any other member states rail infrastructure, both for passenger transport and goods. The free competition provided by the mandate is optional for regional and urban passenger trains.[4]"

So once privatised there was no way back. If state owned then the existing situation was allowed to continue.
 
Gramaisc

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
1200px-GB_Rail_Subsidy%2C_1985-2019.png
 
Gramaisc

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
kyoto49 said:
This isn't really very representative of the subsidy though is it. £2 billion in the 1980s, 40 years ago, would be very much more in today's money wouldn't it? Not that I'm against nationalisation cos I'm not. It can't come soon enough!
Click to expand...

You can multiply by about 2.9 to render a 1985 pound in today's money. The pre-nationalisation investment spike was the taxpayer 'sweetening' the deal.

And the nationalised railways weren't paying the subsidies straight out to shareholders, rather than actually subsidising the service - as we see clearly with the current water farce.
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
gilesjuk said:
When we were in the EU were had to provide private companies access to the railway network. So nationalising all services would have gone against that.

"Thus in 1991 EU Directive 91/440 was created to make it a legal requirement for independent companies to be able to apply for non-discriminatory track access (running powers) on a European Union country's track.[3]"

"The aims of the directive are to create a more efficient rail network by creating greater competition. To achieve this aim member states are required to ensure that organisations operating the infrastructure (track, signalling etc.), and those operating services (trains) are separate and run on a commercial basis.[note 4] Additionally railway companies from all member states are allowed to run services on any other member states rail infrastructure, both for passenger transport and goods. The free competition provided by the mandate is optional for regional and urban passenger trains.[4]"

So once privatised there was no way back. If state owned then the existing situation was allowed to continue.
Click to expand...
You don't need to nationalise all services, you don't need to exclude all private firms, you simply have your nationalised firm bid on the contracts too. That way the private lot have to compete with public ownership, not just each other who all plan to dish cash out to shareholders.

Most of Europe has some nationalised services?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top