Should the energy industry be renationalised?

Southend1

worried_jim wrote: »

Before they go on strike! If I were a betting man and was asked which rail company is most likely to strike I would bet my house on east coast trains simply because they are in government ownership.

If teachers weren't public servants do you honestly think they would have been on strike last week.

It is usually only public servants that strike as they know they can't be sacked for it, historically it's quite plain to see.

Sorry but this is completely wrong!

See Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/contents, particularly paragraph 238a...

(2)An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (unfair dismissal) as unfairly dismissed if—
(a)the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee took protected industrial action, and
(b)subsection (3), (4) or (5) applies to the dismissal.


There is no difference in the law relating to industrial action which distinguishes between a private sector and public sector employee.

Southend1

Well, the poll seems to have settled down at 60/40 in favour of renationalisation.

Thanks for everyone's votes and comments, it's really interesting to know what others are thinking about this.

I wonder if any political party will take any notice of what seems to be a majority in favour of renationalising?

Yorksport

Southend1 wrote: »

Well, the poll seems to have settled down at 60/40 in favour of renationalisation.

Thanks for everyone's votes and comments, it's really interesting to know what others are thinking about this.

I wonder if any political party will take any notice of what seems to be a majority in favour of renationalising?

Based on 73 votes? No notice at all. Competition = choice; nationalisation = no choice. Where there is a market with sufficient competition, suppliers fight for customers which keeps pressure on prices. A nationalised industry is dependent on a regulator to control prices and the taxpayer picks up the bill. We now live in a market economy. The energy industry is able to operate as a cartel because there is insufficient competition: stimulating that by encouraging new entrants is where government effort must go. The select committee next week will be interesting.

Southend1

Yorksport wrote: »

Based on 73 votes? No notice at all. Competition = choice; nationalisation = no choice. Where there is a market with sufficient competition, suppliers fight for customers which keeps pressure on prices. A nationalised industry is dependent on a regulator to control prices and the taxpayer picks up the bill. We now live in a market economy. The energy industry is able to operate as a cartel because there is insufficient competition: stimulating that by encouraging new entrants is where government effort must go. The select committee next week will be interesting.

Theoretically, maybe but in reality gas is not like cornflakes. There will always be a limited number of producers due to the physical issues involved in extraction and the other barriers to entry. So no matter how many different resellers there are, they are all buying the same product from a limited range of suppliers at roughly the same price. All that would happen with more suppliers would be increased marketing costs and lower economies of scale, passed on to the consumer. A monopoly run in the public interest does not need to factor in any marketing costs and has huge purchasing power on the market therefore can negotiate better prices.

PS I didn't mean will the politicians take any notice of this poll, clearly they won't. I meant if it is a reflection of public sentiment, will any of them pick up on this and do anything about it?

Pincher

If the country actually managed the energy supply, it will be a bottomless pit of subsidies. Every low income household will have a right to subsidised heating. You cannot cut off OAPs, so what are you going to do, withhold their winter fuel allowance?


The gutless politicians will have no choice but to increase the price for everyone NOT on benefits, who actually have assets that you can send bailiffs to seize. If too many people protest, they will just add the cost to VAT or income tax.

Broadwood

There's something about mains gas and electricity which I can't quite get my head round. How do the different suppliers combine what they have bought on the respective wholesale markets, and then know where it has gone? Us consumers just draw off the gas and electric mains and are then billed for what we have used at different prices according to who our supplier is on paper. It must be very complicated. At least with petrol or diesel and supermarket shopping there is a traceable supply chain for billing purposes.

Water is different in that each company stores pipes and bills for a whole geographic part of the country. Why wasn't gas and electricity privatised along similar geographic areas using the old nationalised area boards as a starting point?

Southend1

Broadwood wrote: »

There's something about mains gas and electricity which I can't quite get my head round. How do the different suppliers combine what they have bought on the respective wholesale markets, and then know where it has gone? Us consumers just draw off the gas and electric mains and are then billed for what we have used at different prices according to who our supplier is on paper. It must be very complicated. At least with petrol or diesel and supermarket shopping there is a traceable supply chain for billing purposes.

Water is different in that each company stores pipes and bills for a whole geographic part of the country. Why wasn't gas and electricity privatised along similar geographic areas using the old nationalised area boards as a starting point?

I think you're over complicating it. They don't need to track every electron. As long as the wholesalers supply the amount they have been asked to to the grid, the retailers bill us for what we have used and the distributors match up the supply and demand then the system will work. Or maybe I'm oversimplifying?

Southend1

Pincher wrote: »

If the country actually managed the energy supply, it will be a bottomless pit of subsidies. Every low income household will have a right to subsidised heating. You cannot cut off OAPs, so what are you going to do, withhold their winter fuel allowance?


The gutless politicians will have no choice but to increase the price for everyone NOT on benefits, who actually have assets that you can send bailiffs to seize. If too many people protest, they will just add the cost to VAT or income tax.

Do you think it's ok for private companies to leave vulnerable people in the cold then?

I think there are actually a number of schemes funded publicly and by the industry (I.e. By consumers!) to support vulnerable groups anyway.

DragonQ

Pincher wrote: »

If the country actually managed the energy supply, it will be a bottomless pit of subsidies. Every low income household will have a right to subsidised heating. You cannot cut off OAPs, so what are you going to do, withhold their winter fuel allowance?


The gutless politicians will have no choice but to increase the price for everyone NOT on benefits, who actually have assets that you can send bailiffs to seize. If too many people protest, they will just add the cost to VAT or income tax.

How is this any different to what happens now lol? Where do you think the Winter Fuel Payment comes from if not from taxation?

Broadwood

Southend1 wrote: »

Do you think it's ok for private companies to leave vulnerable people in the cold then?

I think there are actually a number of schemes funded publicly and by the industry (I.e. By consumers!) to support vulnerable groups anyway.

I'm not rich..... I run an 8 year old diesel car, I don't have Sky tv or a smartphone and I've never smoked but I do pay the important bills in order of priority.

I don't object to schemes funded publicly or by other customers via a social element incorporated in fuel bills provided the vulnerable recipients aren't enjoying luxuries that I can't afford.

Hope this makes sense. Maybe I should go out and buy a nice Bentley?