Should the energy industry be renationalised?

Southend1

Broadwood wrote: »

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?

There's often a perception that people on benefits are living it up at taxpayers' expense but when you look into what the entitlements actually are it's pretty sobering. I think these myths are just propagated by right wing press like the daily mail to encourage the public to support tax cuts for the rich

Broadwood

Southend1 wrote: »

There's often a perception that people on benefits are living it up at taxpayers' expense but when you look into what the entitlements actually are it's pretty sobering. I think these myths are just propagated by right wing press like the daily mail to encourage the public to support tax cuts for the rich

I never mentioned people on benefits. You did.

My parents have a far higher disposable income than I do, but they get help with fuel bills via the winter fuel allowance. The government needs to start again with a new blank sheet of paper. As a country we're broke and need to live within our means. The same applies to families and individuals.

DragonQ

Broadwood wrote: »

I never mentioned people on benefits. You did.

My parents have a far higher disposable income than I do, but they get help with fuel bills via the winter fuel allowance. The government needs to start again with a new blank sheet of paper. As a country we're broke and need to live within our means. The same applies to families and individuals.

Eseentially every country is broke. Almost every country has debts, and it's always been that way. Hell, we've almost always had budget deficits too. Somehow it's only been a problem recently because our deficit ballooned when we had to fight against the global credit crunch. As a percentage of GDP, our debt is manageable and has been higher. Debt is only a problem long-term, not short-term. The deficit is certainly a problem but that is scheduled to be sorted out in a few years (taking longer than planned even though the government hugely cut down on the amount they pay to universities hmmmm). On the flip side, borrowing has never been cheaper so now is the perfect time to invest in infrastructure, even if it means increasing the debt in the short-term.

Having said that, I do agree that things like the Winter Fuel Payment should be means tested. I also think higher education should be free depending on the benefit of the course in question to society (preventing people going to university for a laugh, doing a degree which won't help them or the economy much, without paying for it). Maybe that will be the case in the future when we have a surplus like in the early 2000s? Who am I kidding? :rotfl:

Southend1

Broadwood wrote: »

I never mentioned people on benefits.

You mentioned people on subsidised social energy schemes. I would class that as a benefit.

Broadwood

Southend1 wrote: »

You mentioned people on subsidised social energy schemes. I would class that as a benefit.

True......they are benefiting.....but I deliberately avoided the term you used.

Basically I find the concept of keeping Sky tv or the luxury of a contract smartphone while at the same time "qualifying" for help with basic bills or having access to food banks rather .....strange.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned in my ideas of a fair society.

Anthorn

No way no how. I shudder to think what successive governments would do with it.

We should consider that heating, lighting and water are basic human needs and they should not be treated as a profit-making enterprise. So energy and water companies should be mutuals owned by their customers.

DragonQ

Broadwood wrote: »

True......they are benefiting.....but I deliberately avoided the term you used.

Basically I find the concept of keeping Sky tv or the luxury of a contract smartphone while at the same time "qualifying" for help with basic bills or having access to food banks rather .....strange.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned in my ideas of a fair society.

I think everyone abhors that but the reality is this is very rare. Most people taking benefits need it; only the Daily Mail would have you think otherwise by singling out and sensationalising individual, anecdotal stories.

Anthorn wrote: »

We should consider that heating, lighting and water are basic human needs and they should not be treated as a profit-making enterprise.

The problem with this argument is that food is also essential, yet that industry is dominated by private companies. The difference between the food industry and the petrol/energy/water industries is that the former is truly competitive. So it may be possible to sort out the latter industries by making them properly competitive. Water would be tricky simply because it's regionalised - this should be owned by the taxpayer really.

Anthorn wrote: »

So energy and water companies should be mutuals owned by their customers.

Interesting idea, I wonder if anyone has proposed this kind of plan in detail.

Broadwood

DragonQ wrote: »

I think everyone abhors that but the reality is this is very rare.

I accept it might not be widespread, but I'm quite convinced it's not that rare either.

P.S. I've never ever read the Daily Mail.

Southend1

DragonQ wrote: »

I think everyone abhors that but the reality is this is very rare. Most people taking benefits need it; only the Daily Mail would have you think otherwise by singling out and sensationalising individual, anecdotal stories.


The problem with this argument is that food is also essential, yet that industry is dominated by private companies. The difference between the food industry and the petrol/energy/water industries is that the former is truly competitive. So it may be possible to sort out the latter industries by making them properly competitive. Water would be tricky simply because it's regionalised - this should be owned by the taxpayer really.


Interesting idea, I wonder if anyone has proposed this kind of plan in detail.

I believe welsh water is a not for profit

DragonQ

Southend1 wrote: »

I believe welsh water is a not for profit

I think Salmond said recently that Scotland's water provider is not-for-profit and has the cheapest prices in the UK.