Should the energy industry be renationalised?

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

Cardew wrote: »

Well if it will stop the stupid idea of holding the World Cup there in 2022, we could give it a go.

I believe they tolerate cruelty to their donkeys and camels(the real ones - not footballers) - so that will get a few pressure groups on our side.

I've lived there, and the way they treat their migrant South Asian workers is astonishing and disgusting.

To think, South Africa suffered a sporting boycott in days gone by, and Qatar get a World Cup :eek:

Southend1

spot1034 wrote: »

That's because the people who want it have no coherent argument - they just have theis vague idea that it would somehow mean lower bills. In fact, it wouldn't - if anything they would probably be higher.

What factors do you think would contribute to higher prices if it were nationalised?

Southend1

antrobus wrote: »

A lot bigger.

But then the 'upstream profits' i.e. those that accrue from the extraction of the raw materials, as in gas, oil, coal, will be in the hands of those entities that are in possession of said raw materials. I'm not that convinced that establishing that the gas that Qatar is selling us at $1000 a tonne (or whatever it is) only costs them £50 a tonne to extract and ship to Milford Haven is necessarily going to change anything.

Although I suppose we could just invade Qatar.:)

I always thought Iraq was about getting hold of oil for the US and the UK. But we don't seem to have seen any benefit in lower prices.

Southend1

MillicentBystander wrote: »

In an ideal World I would greatly welcome re-nationalisation of this appalling industry of Thatcher's making and successive Govt's perpetuation. But we've spent all our money (and more besides) propping up yet another casualty of the supposed (on here) fantastic capitalist system. It just isn't going to happen so the ONLY way forward is to properly regulate the b******* so that they are at least acting transaperently and genuinely have to compete for those millions upon millions of households. Won't happen of course no matter which party is in power.

Maybe strong regulation is the way forward. I think this is what Miliband was arguing for- using the 20 month frozen price period to establish a regulator with teeth

Southend1

chris-j wrote: »

Proper regulation required not nationalisation which would just make it a public sector money pit.
Regulators are toothless and scared of government for some reason. They have allowed government to get customers to fund crazy green ideas which are doing nothing more than filling pockets of land owners and subsidising solar panels on peoples roofs. If these green energy ideas are so good and efficient why are all energy customers having tk provide the financial bribe for people to take up the technology.

People are also there own worst enemies on this, it takes hardly any time at all to do comparison and transferring suppliers is easy yet the lethargic british public continue to stick with same supplier.

But if the only alternative is to switch to a supplier with equally poor customer service and similar prices, where is the incentive for people to switch? Also if think a lot of people don't understand why we need all these resellers selling the same stuff just branded differently.

Pincher

Southend1 wrote: »

Also if think a lot of people don't understand why we need all these resellers selling the same stuff just branded differently.

When I am emperor, there will be only one brand: Imperial.

Don't even have to design a logo, the soap people already have.

Southend1

Pincher wrote: »

When I am emperor, there will be only one brand: Imperial.

Don't even have to design a logo, the soap people already have.

This made me :rotfl:

spot1034

Southend1 wrote: »

What factors do you think would contribute to higher prices if it were nationalised?

Firstly, nationalised industries are notorious for being inefficient and secondly, the huge cost (estimated by some at £300 billion) needed for upgrading the UK's energy infrastructure would have to be met much more directly by the consumer. Private companies reinvest their profits, they can issue new share capital and can borrow at more competitive rates than heavily indebted governments.

Southend1

spot1034 wrote: »

Firstly, nationalised industries are notorious for being inefficient and secondly, the huge cost (estimated by some at £300 billion) needed for upgrading the UK's energy infrastructure would have to be met much more directly by the consumer. Private companies reinvest their profits, they can issue new share capital and can borrow at more competitive rates than heavily indebted governments.

On the other hand you have east coast trains which has been much more profitable than the private franchise.

And governments can print large quantities of money.

Nationalised industries can also reinvest profits, whether they are allowed to by government is a different matter!

Southend1

Can't believe how close the voting is on this poll. It would be interesting if there were a debate in parliament on the subject or even a referendum.