Corbyn effect! Re-nationalising! At last some sense!!!

whitegoods_engineer

With Corbyn now on the scene, at last we're getting some sense in the private/public ownership debates.

Take energy companies as one example:

How stupid is it that we have one product, energy, needed by everybody, being split up between various wholesalers, retailers, marketing and other companies!

All of these companies conflict with each other. We have different energy companies all trying to get us to switch to them. All of these companies have an infrastructure duplicated by other companies with a similar infrastructure. All of these companies are buying, selling, invoicing one another, all with their vast overheads, then, from this taking profits.

We're all paying for all of this bloated system through our energy bills.

It's madness!

We all know of inefficiencies in, for example, the NHS, and the right-wing press are always talking about it. However, the privatised energy market makes the NHS look positively efficient!

How about we take energy generation and production into public hands. We could do away with layers and layers of inefficiencies of different companies all claiming to do the best deal (Well they can't all be the cheapest as they claim, can they)

Since energy is so lucrative and so many companies are making huge profits, imagine how much money the state could receive if it owned and controlled the production of energy sources.

It's a no-brainer. Instead of shareholder profits, the surplus over the cost of production could go into providing better services instead of mansions for shareholders.

It's good that the debate has begun and hopefully, one day, we'll have profit motive removed from essential utilities.

michaels

LU drivers (public ownership) earner 50k+
London bus drivers (privatised) earn low 20s k

I rest my case.

Generali

If private energy suppliers are so inefficient how did they manage to increase profits while cutting prices for a decade?

Your post is what we economists call, "rubbish".

SunSunSundegei

michaels wrote: »

LU drivers (public ownership) earner 50k+
London bus drivers (privatised) earn low 20s k

I rest my case.

Which London Bus Drivers are you referring to ?

Bus drivers in Oxford earn £30K a year, and I don't see why London should be any different.

Anyway the London Bus system is no different to the Tube, in that it is owned by TfL except that the routes contracted out to private operators who tender for the operation. TfL sets the fares, and the rules.

michaels

SunSunSundegei wrote: »

Which London Bus Drivers are you referring to ?

Bus drivers in Oxford earn £30K a year, and I don't see why London shoiuld be any different.

http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Bus_Driver/Hourly_Rate/4d7c97e4/London

£16,838 - £29,816

cells

Generali wrote: »

If private energy suppliers are so inefficient how did they manage to increase profits while cutting prices for a decade?

technology got more efficient

very very efficient gas plants replaced much less efficient coal and nuclear plants (a 2 GW CCGT requires as little as 40 full time staff. The same for a nuke can be 1000-2000 staff. The same for a coal plant 400-800 staff)

The demand profile of the nation has changed for the positive over the last 15-20 years mostly due to lighting efficiency meaning fewer idle plants and higher capacity factors

millions more homes and business connected to the grid sharing the cost out

The cost of capital fell considerably

The north sea output reduced uk prices for fuel especially natgas


so it wasnt just for reasons of state to private changeover.
Of course you could try to argue that a state energy sector would have not done these things or resisted them and maybe you could be correct

Generali

cells wrote: »

technology got more efficient

very very efficient gas plants replaced much less efficient coal and nuclear plants (a 2 GW CCGT requires as little as 40 full time staff. The same for a nuke can be 1000-2000 staff. The same for a coal plant 400-800 staff)

The demand profile of the nation has changed for the positive over the last 15-20 years mostly due to lighting efficiency meaning fewer idle plants and higher capacity factors

millions more homes and business connected to the grid sharing the cost out

The cost of capital fell considerably

The north sea output reduced uk prices for fuel especially natgas
so it wasnt just for reasons of state to private changeover.
Of course you could try to argue that a state energy sector would have not done these things or resisted them and maybe you could be correct

I just find it difficult to believe that each of the privatised utilities got more efficient, not as a result of privatisation but coincidentally timed to match when they were.

I now have to deal with nationalised utilities. I pay vastly more than I did in the UK despite living in a country that digs vast quantities of coal and gas out of the ground and they are, generally speaking, utterly useless. I was once threatened with being taken to court because I hadn't paid my final bill of $0.00.

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

If private energy suppliers are so inefficient how did they manage to increase profits while cutting prices for a decade?

Your post is what we economists call, "rubbish".

Because energy costs have been falling and the market has been growing?

What on earth do they do anyway? When I switch from NPower to EDF and back because they are all weasles who tease people with intro rates and then shaft them, I am not getting different gas or electric.

It is coming through the same pipes from the same places.

Those pipes must be returned to public ownership now.

They are the people's pipes.

wymondham

At least with an energy company I can look elsewhere when they hike prices, but with my water company I have no choice....

Sapphire

Generali wrote: »

If private energy suppliers are so inefficient how did they manage to increase profits while cutting prices for a decade?

Your post is what we economists call, "rubbish".

When it comes to nationalising anything, I do worry about the possibility of strikes (involving the country being held to ransom like it frequently was at one time), the lack of competition and the slack and downright rude attitudes of many employees, who were guaranteed jobs for life and thus couldn't care less how they treated 'customers' who relied on services from the industries involved.

I do think, however, that utility companies have too much of a monopoly and should perhaps be reduced in size, with more competition (and less cooperation when it comes to cost) between them being introduced.

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

They are the people's pipes.

:rotfl:Thanks for the laugh.:rotfl:

Now we have Corbynite acolytes as well as SNP ones. It'll be fun going over his downfall with them.