Forum Home» The Money Savers Arms» Discussion Time

Why we should nationalise energy suppliers - not - Page 2

New Post Advanced Search
Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.

Money Savers Arms


Last ooorders!… We’re sorry but for now, due to resources, we need to close the Money Savers Arms including Discussion Time.

It’s not easy to write this. We love the forum, but we also have a job to do to protect it, our users and MoneySavingExpert, and at the moment, with all our resources focused on Coronavirus information, and all the team at home, we don’t feel we have the resources to do a good enough job.

For four months, we’ve been struggling to cope with the huge volumes of messages we’ve been getting from Forumites – many of whom are in desperate and dire straits with their finances. The team have been working all hours to try and keep on top of it. At first we thought it’d be a short sharp spike, but it isn’t, it’s continuing, so we have had some difficult choices to make about prioritisation.

Unfortunately in, and likely because of, these stressful times, the Forum team have also been receiving an increasing number of complaints about posts made on the Money Savers Arms and Discussion Time. The team have done what they can to try and walk the tightrope of balancing all the various interests, but for now we need to draw a line under this and temporarily close this Board, so we can keep the key, MoneySaving boards – where people are supporting each other through this crisis - running smoothly.

We know this board is important to you, but as the MSE stance has been forbearance throughout this crisis, now we ask that of you. We’re sorry. Of course you can post on other boards, but we’d ask you to stick to the subjects of those boards, and not use them as a surrogate Money Savers Arms or Discussion Time. And as always please be kind and friendly to each other, especially any newbies.

Thanks
MSE Forum Team

Why we should nationalise energy suppliers - not

edited 30 November -1 at 12:00AM in Discussion Time
51 replies 539 views
2456

Replies

  • RelaxRelax Forumite
    3.9K posts
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    NewShadow wrote: »


    Anything I've missed on either side of the debate?


    Yes, that sector's, industries and markets evolve.

    An industry that might well be seen as vital to a nation or of strategic importance may well be viewed differently as either that particular product evolves or the global market changes.

    There are a vast amount of examples, national carrier airlines being an obvious one, shipbuilding yards, iron and steel manufacture.

    Many countries have very different views even now of just those examples.

    It annoys me when people neglect or even don't even include the importance of evolution.

    It was the whole problem with the recent broadband offer ~ that market has already evolved itself new opportunities that are not reliant on hard backbones for connection speeds.

    The free market is a better vehicle for those evolutionary market forces to act on as capital can be pulled out the wrecks of businesses stripped and the capital can be back working in the system far quicker than any state player.

    State owned enterprise is very good at creating new industries, not running mature ones.
  • rupertsruperts Forumite
    3.7K posts
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    Jackmydad wrote: »
    Meanwhile in the real world everything has to be paid for somehow by somebody. . .

    Has anyone suggested otherwise?
  • donnajunkiedonnajunkie Forumite
    32.4K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Marisco wrote: »
    I do think rail should be nationalised though, at the minute it's a right dogs dinner with too many fingers in the pie. The ticket pricing is ridiculously complicated, it should be run as a not for profit outfit for the benefit of the public.

    For me water and energy would be the priority.
  • daveyjpdaveyjp Forumite
    9.8K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    michaels wrote: »
    https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/city-council-loan-95-million-3455105

    Basically council owned Robin Hood energy has required a cash injection from Nottingham Council, money that should be spent on social services for the most needy. There is a reason why it is best to have the private sector run companies.

    Note a certain Mr Jeremy Corbyn buys his leccy from this company so he is also benefitting from artificially low prices subsidised by Nottingham council tax payers.

    If you follow the money it looks like a good move to me.

    Its a loan. Loans attract interest.

    Interest to the Council means more money returned to be spent on "social services for the most needy", rather than bank shareholders.
  • RelaxRelax Forumite
    3.9K posts
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    daveyjp wrote: »
    If you follow the money it looks like a good move to me.

    Its a loan. Loans attract interest.

    Interest to the Council means more money returned to be spent on "social services for the most needy", rather than bank shareholders.

    So next time I want to buy a new car ~ Would you suggest that I ask my local council for a loan?
  • MasomniaMasomnia Forumite
    19.5K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    daveyjp wrote: »
    If you follow the money it looks like a good move to me.

    Its a loan. Loans attract interest.

    Interest to the Council means more money returned to be spent on "social services for the most needy", rather than bank shareholders.

    Assuming they get paid back. If they don't get paid back then the Council just ends up as another creditor in the insolvency process hoping to get back a share of !!!!!! all.
    “I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.” - P.G. Wodehouse
  • edited 13 January 2020 at 8:12PM
    NewShadowNewShadow Forumite
    6.8K posts
    Sixth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 13 January 2020 at 8:12PM
    Zebra wrote: »
    We already have a state owned power company.

    Only it's not owned by the UK government it's owned by the French government

    EDF is French government owned and doing rather well, not just in this country but worldwide.

    Point of fact, EDF is a mixed model - the Government own in the region of 80% of the shares and has a controlling majority of the board - but it crucially means the Government doesn't have legal liability beyond that of a shareholder...

    That's because it's not operated as a Government body - it's operated as a private business, seeking to make a profit, and pays dividends to the Government the same as it does to the minority shareholders - which is a slightly different model than 'nationalisation'.
    Relax wrote: »
    Yes, that sector's, industries and markets evolve.

    An industry that might well be seen as vital to a nation or of strategic importance may well be viewed differently as either that particular product evolves or the global market changes.

    There are a vast amount of examples, national carrier airlines being an obvious one, shipbuilding yards, iron and steel manufacture.

    Many countries have very different views even now of just those examples.

    It annoys me when people neglect or even don't even include the importance of evolution.

    It was the whole problem with the recent broadband offer ~ that market has already evolved itself new opportunities that are not reliant on hard backbones for connection speeds.

    Apologies for any offence - but that was why I put 'services' rather than naming any specific industry...

    Can you clarify if that's an argument for or against nationalisation - or do you think there should be some mechanism for nationalising, then re-privatising, as things evolve?

    My first instinct would be that such an idea sounds expensive... and that we'd have to change our attitudes toward the 'rich' if we repeatedly want them to take over services with the implication the state will take them back as soon as they start to be returning a profit ;)
    The free market is a better vehicle for those evolutionary market forces to act on as capital can be pulled out the wrecks of businesses stripped and the capital can be back working in the system far quicker than any state player.

    State owned enterprise is very good at creating new industries, not running mature ones.

    These two points feel contradictory to me... what am I missing?
    daveyjp wrote: »
    If you follow the money it looks like a good move to me.

    Its a loan. Loans attract interest.

    Interest to the Council means more money returned to be spent on "social services for the most needy", rather than bank shareholders.

    What it means is the council have basically loaned themselves money... that only equates to more money on paper; in reality in situations like this, most of the debts - and often the loan itself - are written off.
    That sounds like a classic case of premature extrapolation.

    House deposit: 25% = £32,500 Banked!
    Next Step: Complete = possibly in a few weeks = On Track On Hold
    giphy.gif
    Goal: Keep the bigger picture in mind...
  • RelaxRelax Forumite
    3.9K posts
    1,000 Posts Third Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    NewShadow wrote: »


    Apologies for any offence - but that was why I put 'services' rather than naming any specific industry...

    Can you clarify if that's an argument for or against nationalisation - or do you think there should be some mechanism for nationalising, then re-privatising, as things evolve?

    My first instinct would be that such an idea sounds expensive... and that we'd have to change our attitudes toward the 'rich' if we repeatedly want them to take over services with the implication the state will take them back as soon as they start to be returning a profit ;)

    No offence took.

    I would definitely see the use of national desire or importance as a reason for the state to invest in sectors, even well-established sectors, and I see no reason why that should not be incepted with milestones, some of which would be to either generate profit for government or for others to take on an element of risk or even create enterprises that make excellent investments for products such as pensions that require safe places to drop customers money.

    I am in favour of strategic governance that can often see a future opportunity that the " invisible hand" can not see.

    An example of one lost opportunity the free market produced would be a water national grid ~ where water-rich north could sell to water-poor south through a series of nationally created waterways~ something no region will ever find cost-effective ~ so we now have reverse osmosis plants in London and annual droughts in the south-east

    But I can not think of a UK industry that has been permanently nationalised that has been successful?

    It is then just a question of how they fail, Which is mostly slowly and costly and with what appears as they crumble huge layers of infrastructure to prevent any realistic return to normal business economics.





    NewShadow wrote: »
    These two points feel contradictory to me... what am I missing?



    I perhaps thought more than I typed, my apologies ~ I think historically the best use of state-owned enterprise and its intervention into the markets tends to be in regards to defence.

    Knowing that a market exists even for something that sounds an impossibility is where state created industries seem to do ok.

    car production, for example, is quite frankly absurd and the ability of a business to die quickly and be cut open quickly enough to transfer vital organs that still have value is diminished whenever the state gets involved.


    If you are forced to leave all the social support in place when you take a good or service into the private sector because it is seen as not being something that can be replaced by anything else in the market, then it is in fact a product that is not in a position to go to market because market forces don't act on it properly, it does not improve or decline to traditional market forces.
  • edited 14 January 2020 at 2:12AM
    MuttleythefrogMuttleythefrog Forumite
    19K posts
    Tenth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 14 January 2020 at 2:12AM
    michaels wrote: »
    https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/city-council-loan-95-million-3455105

    Basically council owned Robin Hood energy has required a cash injection from Nottingham Council, money that should be spent on social services for the most needy. There is a reason why it is best to have the private sector run companies.

    Note a certain Mr Jeremy Corbyn buys his leccy from this company so he is also benefitting from artificially low prices subsidised by Nottingham council tax payers.
    But private companies are going belly up all the time leaving consumers in all sorts of mess. As someone points out.. if it's a loan they might do well out of it...

    meanwhile an airline company the government needs afloat to support its regional development realities is begging for support that could even end up with tax rule changes for the sector in order to deal with - private failure

    and the private company appointed last year to handle up front admin (biometrics, document scanning) for immigration is so in chaos (and not cheap either) that the Home Office is having to relax rules on time to make appointments after applications because applicants cannot get timely appointments. (And then when you do get appointment some barely trained admin clerk looks at your hoard of original documents and wonders what they're meant to do in response to your application that cost over 2 grand and can be rejected for technical omissions). Private failure.

    There's plenty private failure out there.... at least when governments run companies there seems to be some accountability in a public facing vote needing self interested politician. We've clearly had deviants operating in the energy sector like Economy Energy. We've got the government running train services to London down the east coast mainline. The private sector is just becoming a place of criminality and incompetence at the expense of public need.
    "Do not attribute to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence" - rogerblack
  • MacMicksterMacMickster Forumite
    3.6K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    daveyjp wrote: »
    If you follow the money it looks like a good move to me.

    Its a loan. Loans attract interest.

    Interest to the Council means more money returned to be spent on "social services for the most needy", rather than bank shareholders.

    Banks give out loans, but only after carrying out a risk assessment on the chances of getting their money back.

    I presume that this business tried to get a normal commercial loan from the usual sources but were considered a bad risk. Do you think that it is a good thing for council tax to be spent on making particularly risky loans?
    "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support