|
Post by shevii on Aug 29, 2022 11:19:05 GMT
Whether people understand that nationalisation just means shifting the cost to taxpayers I'm never sure. Isn't that "cost" an investment though? Not like those private companies don't currently have investors who believe they are getting a good return on their investment. Of course if the government did own those companies and then decides it needs to scrap their excess profits in order to reduce people's bills (and presumably excess profits is factored into the share price), then it becomes a "cost" to the government. However it does give the government a much simpler way of addressing the needs of the country than a complex combination of windfall taxes and subsidising energy prices It then also allows future investment (by the government) for energy security and net zero to match exactly those goals instead of, again, complex subsidies to try and get the energy generators to do what the government wants them to do resulting in the energy generators getting the majority of the benefit in the long term and picking and choosing what takes their fancy. There's been so little written about nationalisation and even then mostly biased articles, and little clarity on the pros and cons of nationalisation or the percentage of UK electricity generation that we could nationalise. Could we nationalise our UK EDF nuclear power stations for example (probably not)? What percentage of electricity generation that we can't nationalise have options for alternative markets other than the UK and are therefore going to be pricing at worldwide or European rates? What percentage of UK energy usage can be subject to windfall taxes? No-one seems to be writing about this. Most of the talk on nationalisation centres on the suppliers rather than the generators which is presumably why the TUC can come up with a figure of £2.3b, although I saw another figure floating around of £60b which maybe covers some of the generators as well. As compared to £37b for track and trace this seems a bargain (even though anything compared to track and trace would be!) but I doubt even this £60b gives us the control over energy we are looking for. Nationalising suppliers might help a bit but only if the purpose is to set those suppliers up as government owned generators of new (renewable) electricity in the longer term. I'm of the firm view that as a country we should own our own energy generators (and suppliers) and have energy security. This would have prevented the situation we are in now but I can see that there may be easier ways to get to what we are trying to achieve. Consistent windfall taxes on excess profits together with future generation projects being government owned might be the answer. In terms of price caps helping the wealthy as well as the poor, perhaps the solution should be a fixed price subsidy for energy up to a certain value each month (and factored in to time of the year). With Octopus I get monthly readings and bills from a smart meter, maybe not everyone is in a situation but could send in customer readings on the due date anyway and with smart meters now becoming the norm this shouldn't necessarily be beyond the billing process to say first £150 of Summer energy/£200 of winter energy is at a capped rate and anything over that at market rate. Might also give an incentive for people to consider how to reduce their bills to keep them below the threshold.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,291
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Aug 29, 2022 11:19:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by isa on Aug 29, 2022 11:36:11 GMT
Thanks, steve. In that case, I'm a little surprised it's not been more widely reported. On second thoughts, perhaps I'm not.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Aug 29, 2022 11:36:38 GMT
If that is indeed true, and I think it's a massive "if", then something remarkable is taking place. Thatcherism really has expired. I think the eagerness for nationalisation is knee-jerk in the same way people have got agitated recently about large bonuses paid to water-company bosses, even tho our rivers & coasts -- the beauty of which is our greatest national asset -- are swimming in sh-t. Having said that, people are suspicious of private companies who are running a quasi- or full monopoly. Our worthy constituent Carfrew gives figures which show that, with respect to utilities, public sentiment is most in favour of nationalising water companies. My monopoly company is United Utilities. There is no choice: either I buy their water or I live out of a rain butt. Their share price has fluctuated a lot over the last 10 years, but they pay a steady 5-6% dividend. tho their price earnings ratio is v high. They also used to run electricity but they sold that off years ago. They also floated [ha ha] the idea of a pipe from NWest to London? I'm glad Paul Johnson has worked out that it's virtually impossible to target households on low-to-average incomes, & that universality is required to reach them. Johnson also notes in The Times, that VAT reduction "would completely crash the public finances” -- pretty scathing of Trussonomics! -- & do little to help the low-average earners. If the new dream team -- Truss/Kwarteng -- don't help this broad swathe of the pop I think they will be in trouble. As for the Starmer proposal, it's Opposition Politics not Policy. It's laid down a marker & will force the Tories to discuss Labour ideas.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,097
|
Post by oldnat on Aug 29, 2022 11:43:00 GMT
I'm preparing for the winter struggles to come. Just ordered a hot water bottle (and cover). I have some bad news for you The bottle is not really hot. You have to heat the water to put in it The mem sahib has ordered one for me. She will use the butler to keep warm at night.
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Aug 29, 2022 11:55:32 GMT
Isa, while I am pleased to see more and more people speaking out against Brexit, I suspect your query as to whether this is genuine may be correct. I doubt whether someone of his ability would use "was" io. "were" in reference to the plural "liars".
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Aug 29, 2022 11:59:25 GMT
I see that the Prince of Wales has broken down off the south coast of England. Was he trying to flee to France for the cheaper leccy? If I wanted to be picky, I would point out that both the carriers were built at Rosyth dockyard and both have suffered multiple problems of this kind since coming into service. That's what comes of having a Scottish PM who wanted to put business into a constituency near to his own.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,038
|
Post by neilj on Aug 29, 2022 12:04:11 GMT
He's got a point, no need to sugar coat it though...I'll get my coat Blimey, that's a pretty frank assessment from someone who knows a bit about business. Is this a genuine Twitter account? Steve beat me to it, but yes it is, it has a blue tick
|
|
|
Post by bedknobsandboomstick on Aug 29, 2022 12:12:02 GMT
I think this is what Alec and Colin have been driving towards regarding the pricing of energy:
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,038
|
Post by neilj on Aug 29, 2022 12:12:48 GMT
Developments in Ukraine
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 29, 2022 12:37:05 GMT
Anyway, my earthquake comment didn't really relate to that. It was more about a large swathe of the Tory core vote apparently coming around to the merits of nationalisation and the public ownership of utilities. Two points. Firstly, a general point that in times of crisis and uncertainty, the ocerton window is less stable with people tacking both left and right...in other words, a larger than usual chunk of voterss moving away from the centre ground. Secondly, more directly relating to your post, the poll is of "2019 tory voters". There will be a fair few, particularly in the so-called red wall that are not tory voters but brexit voters...people that while on the right on social issues are left wing economically. I suspect that if it were *long term* tory voters, the result would have been at least a little different.
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Aug 29, 2022 12:37:48 GMT
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,406
|
Post by pjw1961 on Aug 29, 2022 12:44:21 GMT
Just a comment on Lord Sugar. The view he expressed regarding Brexit is not a shock - he was a strong remainer in 2016. Also he is politically centrist, being a member of the Labour Party 1997-2015 and serving in a non-political role under Gordon Brown. He really loathed Corbyn and endorsed the Tories in 2017 and 2019 but essentially on an anti-Corbyn stance. So not a leftie, but certainly not a dyed-in-the-wool Tory either.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Aug 29, 2022 12:49:27 GMT
Isa, while I am pleased to see more and more people speaking out against Brexit, I suspect your query as to whether this is genuine may be correct. I doubt whether someone of his ability would use "was" io. "were" in reference to the plural "liars". Funnily enough, his use of "was" in that context actually gave the article more credibility for me rather than less. Having caught The Apprentice from time to time, it is certainly not unknown for him to speak in that manner.
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Aug 29, 2022 13:06:13 GMT
Isa: "Funnily enough, his use of "was" in that context actually gave the article more credibility for me rather than less. Having caught The Apprentice from time to time, it is certainly not unknown for him to speak in that manner."
I agree. His 'rough diamond' persona is genuine, I think. No reason why someone who's pulled himself up by his own bootstraps on the basis of energy and business acumen should be a polished user of English - though he could presumably use Grammarly or a flunkie if he could be bothered. He also misused lead instead of led, incidentally ("if I mislead or lied to my shareholders") unless he intended the first verb to be in the present tense.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 29, 2022 13:07:25 GMT
Is that piece paywalled? I've only got the start of the first paragraph before the text fades to nothing, but, no mention of an actual paywall... I'm using a desktop/Firefox.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,835
|
Post by Danny on Aug 29, 2022 13:15:00 GMT
steve - don't really disagree with much of your post. Long covid is a very real and pressing concern, but what we are learning as a result of the massive research effort going into to covid is that other viruses create similar long term effects, although none have the range of effects on multiple organ systems as covid We really do not know that.
We know covid is an especially virulent virus compared to those which come along regularly each year, and so we would expect its longer term effects to be proportionately greater. For a proper comparison you might need to do a study of people infected with something like Spanish flu 100 years ago, not people infected with that same virus today because we have widespread immunity now. A comparion with when that too was a novel and therefore virulent disease. Comparing with the outcomes of spanish flu infections today is a nonsense comparison.
The study I posted some while back showed how in that case deaths from TB collapsed after the flu epidemic, presumably because it had finished off many even most of the people who were infected with TB, which otherwise could take a decade or more to kill you. So there was a very nice health improvement for the survivors and a rather reduced future risk of catching TB. We cannot really tell if there is a long term drop in deaths in the UK because covid killed off already poorly people slated to die soon or within a few years, because the expanding collapse of the NHS is masking any such long term health improvments caused by covid.
Although I think you posted a study recently which indeed said there seems to have been a long term post covid health improvement compared to previously, in may european countries?
|
|
|
Post by jayblanc on Aug 29, 2022 13:15:11 GMT
Re: VAT rules...
It didn't get much, if any, press at the time, but the EU actually greatly relaxed the rules about VAT earlier this year giving member states much more latitude to reduce or zero rate VAT on more essential goods and services, as well as allowing zero rated VAT on renewable energy and 'green' adaptations such as heat pumps and electric bicycles. (https://insightplus.bakermckenzie.com/bm/tax/europe-eu-council-approves-fundamental-overhaul-of-vat-rates)
Could it posibly be that the UK led the bloc on maintaining high rates of VAT on vast ranges of products in order to be able to blame the EU for forcing them to do so?
I discovered this because I was looking at buying an electric bike, and found that imports from the EU come with warnings of hefty VAT tarrifs because the UK imposes VAT on them while the EU does not. Must be a benefit of all that red tape they cut.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,097
|
Post by oldnat on Aug 29, 2022 13:16:52 GMT
I see that the Prince of Wales has broken down off the south coast of England. Was he trying to flee to France for the cheaper leccy? If I wanted to be picky, I would point out that both the carriers were built at Rosyth dockyard and both have suffered multiple problems of this kind since coming into service. That's what comes of having a Scottish PM who wanted to put business into a constituency near to his own. Dead right! Fortunately Scots voters realised that the decades of sending Brits down to Westminster had been a terrible mistake, and only now send a small sample from each of your 3 parties to remind you how unutterably awful they are.
Mind you, since the ones that we and NI do send are generally viewed with disfavour, it's obviously time for you to get shot of these places.
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Aug 29, 2022 13:21:57 GMT
Apologies Mark and anybody else who has tried to read it, it is probably paywalled. I have a subscribtion to the London Review of Books, so didn't think about that. It is an article written in 1989, which discusses the unpopularity of the Thatcher regime and how they misread the public response to rail and dock strikes. It ends by suggesting that Thatcherism is bound to fail!
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Aug 29, 2022 13:23:17 GMT
Jayblanc: "Could it posibly be that the UK led the bloc on maintaining high rates of VAT on vast ranges of products in order to be able to blame the EU for forcing them to do so?"
Interesting point. Maybe it's the EU that's been freed from the shackles of a domineering, foot-stamping, veto-wielding UK. A brexit benefit at last!
Another is that a UK government can no longer blame the EU for unpopular policies the government promotes, supports and implements.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2022 13:23:37 GMT
Whether people understand that nationalisation just means shifting the cost to taxpayers I'm never sure. Isn't that "cost" an investment though? Not like those private companies don't currently have investors who believe they are getting a good return on their investment. Of course if the government did own those companies and then decides it needs to scrap their excess profits in order to reduce people's bills (and presumably excess profits is factored into the share price), then it becomes a "cost" to the government. However it does give the government a much simpler way of addressing the needs of the country than a complex combination of windfall taxes and subsidising energy prices It then also allows future investment (by the government) for energy security and net zero to match exactly those goals instead of, again, complex subsidies to try and get the energy generators to do what the government wants them to do resulting in the energy generators getting the majority of the benefit in the long term and picking and choosing what takes their fancy. There's been so little written about nationalisation and even then mostly biased articles, and little clarity on the pros and cons of nationalisation or the percentage of UK electricity generation that we could nationalise. Could we nationalise our UK EDF nuclear power stations for example (probably not)? What percentage of electricity generation that we can't nationalise have options for alternative markets other than the UK and are therefore going to be pricing at worldwide or European rates? What percentage of UK energy usage can be subject to windfall taxes? No-one seems to be writing about this. Most of the talk on nationalisation centres on the suppliers rather than the generators which is presumably why the TUC can come up with a figure of £2.3b, although I saw another figure floating around of £60b which maybe covers some of the generators as well. As compared to £37b for track and trace this seems a bargain (even though anything compared to track and trace would be!) but I doubt even this £60b gives us the control over energy we are looking for. Nationalising suppliers might help a bit but only if the purpose is to set those suppliers up as government owned generators of new (renewable) electricity in the longer term. I'm of the firm view that as a country we should own our own energy generators (and suppliers) and have energy security. This would have prevented the situation we are in now but I can see that there may be easier ways to get to what we are trying to achieve. Consistent windfall taxes on excess profits together with future generation projects being government owned might be the answer. In terms of price caps helping the wealthy as well as the poor, perhaps the solution should be a fixed price subsidy for energy up to a certain value each month (and factored in to time of the year). With Octopus I get monthly readings and bills from a smart meter, maybe not everyone is in a situation but could send in customer readings on the due date anyway and with smart meters now becoming the norm this shouldn't necessarily be beyond the billing process to say first £150 of Summer energy/£200 of winter energy is at a capped rate and anything over that at market rate. Might also give an incentive for people to consider how to reduce their bills to keep them below the threshold. The current dividend yield on FTSE equities is around 3.5% pa. UK Gilt yields 2.7% and rising. Index Linked Gilts are headed for double digit yields. The era when zero state borrowing costs was the reason to nationalise everything has gone. For Dividend in the Private sector read Gilt Interest in the Public Sector. As for "Investment"-that is funded in the private sector by profits-ie by customers. If the reason to nationalise is to reduce customer prices , then ergo you have to reduce costs ( including "investment") -or borrow to fund those costs. In the latter case you then introduce the question of political priority in the totality of State borrowing. I think the first question should be-is this business providing an imperative Social Service , or a Strategically important element of State Security ? If the answer is yes-you aren't going to worry about running it as a commercial business. You nationalise it to control it-its just another State cost. Failing that why do you need to increase the State's Debt burden to buy it ? If it is monopolistic, or exploitative, or failing in Service obligations to customer or society- Regulate it effectively and/or Tax unwarranted profits.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,205
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Aug 29, 2022 13:27:39 GMT
If that is indeed true, and I think it's a massive "if", then something remarkable is taking place. Thatcherism really has expired. I think the eagerness for nationalisation is knee-jerk in the same way people have got agitated recently about large bonuses paid to water-company bosses, even tho our rivers & coasts -- the beauty of which is our greatest national asset -- are swimming in sh-t. Having said that, people are suspicious of private companies who are running a quasi- or full monopoly. Our worthy constituent Carfrew gives figures which show that, with respect to utilities, public sentiment is most in favour of nationalising water companies. My monopoly company is United Utilities. There is no choice: either I buy their water or I live out of a rain butt. Their share price has fluctuated a lot over the last 10 years, but they pay a steady 5-6% dividend. tho their price earnings ratio is v high. They also used to run electricity but they sold that off years ago. They also floated [ha ha] the idea of a pipe from NWest to London? I'm glad Paul Johnson has worked out that it's virtually impossible to target households on low-to-average incomes, & that universality is required to reach them. Johnson also notes in The Times, that VAT reduction "would completely crash the public finances” -- pretty scathing of Trussonomics! -- & do little to help the low-average earners. If the new dream team -- Truss/Kwarteng -- don't help this broad swathe of the pop I think they will be in trouble. As for the Starmer proposal, it's Opposition Politics not Policy. It's laid down a marker & will force the Tories to discuss Labour ideas. Comparing now with 2017 does show that more Tories are in favour of energy in public hands now, and indeed that might be the effect of recent energy concerns. However, even in 2017, over a third of Tories were still in favour, before the recent disaster. It isn’t all just a knee-jerk response by any means. When it comes to other sectors, even back in 2017, again before the recent alarms, almost as many Tories were in favour of nationalising water and rail, as there were in favour of leaving them in the private sector. For and against nationalising them were only three or four percent apart among Tories. Support for renationalising has increased recently but it was almost evens before the recent alarms. It is not hard to see reasons as to why they might be a bit keener on water and rail privatisation. Because of the concerns beyond the pricing. E.g. water availability, and water quality/sewage, and with trains, the ability to get a seat, have reasonable connecting services etc. Also, there is another factor: that of voters being bought off, directly and indirectly. Directly, in terms of making easy money on cheap privatisation shares, and the winter fuel allowance for the more elderly. Indirectly in terms of big house price inflation, and triple lock. If you’ve just made £50k on your house, you might worry less about £5k fuel bills. There can be other indirect effects, e.g. past subsidies for solar etc., and even without subsidy if you have bern gifted a fair bit in other ways you are more likely to be able to afford to invest in energy saving and insulation etc. Without all that, it is possible Tory support for energy nationalisation might have been even greeter than it already has been. Of course, if you consider voters overall, not just Tories, then nationalising utilities etc. has been at the centre for a long time. I posted polling to that effect from the nineties on the old board IIRC. Even back in Maggie’s day, IPSOS MORI polling indicated that her privatisations were her third most-hated policy, after NHS underfunding and Poll Tax.
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Aug 29, 2022 13:33:13 GMT
Colin: " As for "Investment"-that is funded in the private sector by profits-ie by customers. If the reason to nationalise is to reduce customer prices , then ergo you have to reduce costs ( including "investment") -or borrow to fund those costs"
Not if the companies are making exaggerated profits and passing the bulk of those onto shareholders and top execs. In that situation a government-controlled entity can reduce profits to the level needed to sustain investment and cover the government's borrowing costs in relation to that entity. It would do that, of course, by reducing prices charged to consumers (or alternatively, spending more on public goods like reducing pollution, improving service etc).
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 29, 2022 13:35:31 GMT
*** ADMIN ***
Just a little advance warning of a new polling thread.
This will likely be at the end of this week or at the weekend, depending when a new poll lands.
With the next tory leader/prime minister being announced a week today, I think it is prudent that there be a new thread just ahead of this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2022 13:39:43 GMT
Colin: " As for "Investment"-that is funded in the private sector by profits-ie by customers. If the reason to nationalise is to reduce customer prices , then ergo you have to reduce costs ( including "investment") -or borrow to fund those costs"Not if the companies are making exaggerated profits and passing the bulk of those onto shareholders and top execs. In that situation a government-controlled entity can reduce profits to the level needed to sustain investment and cover the government's borrowing costs in relation to that entity. It would do that, of course, by reducing prices charged to consumers (or alternatively, spending more on public goods like reducing pollution, improving service etc). Or those "exaggerated" profit and excessive dividends can be regulated away or taxed .
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Aug 29, 2022 13:48:33 GMT
Colin: 'Or those "exaggerated" profit and excessive dividends can be regulated away or taxed ."Yes, that's the current excess-profit control regime - Ofwat etc. Polling doesn't seem to suggest the public are very convinced of its effectiveness. English water companies have handed more than £2bn a year on average to shareholders since they were privatised three decades ago, according to analysis for the Guardian.
The payouts in dividends to shareholders of parent companies between 1991 and 2019 amount to £57bn www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/01/england-privatised-water-firms-dividends-shareholders
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2022 14:07:37 GMT
Colin: 'Or those "exaggerated" profit and excessive dividends can be regulated away or taxed ."Yes, that's the current excess-profit control regime - Ofwat etc. Polling doesn't seem to suggest the public are very convinced of its effectiveness. English water companies have handed more than £2bn a year on average to shareholders since they were privatised three decades ago, according to analysis for the Guardian.
The payouts in dividends to shareholders of parent companies between 1991 and 2019 amount to £57bn www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/01/england-privatised-water-firms-dividends-shareholdersIn which case Regulation is failing and can be altered. In the case of water it clearly is failing given the leakage and sewage discharges. They both need large investment. As an aside I was reading that our sewer systems still follow , or are the legacy of, Bazalgette-who decided to let storm water enter the then new sewage system he built. Today that results in the mad business of venting excess liquid sewage onto our beaches when it rains heavily , with rain water desperately needed where it fell. There is a great description in todays Times of the Llanelli scheme which does away with this stupidity. It cost £115m. I digress. If water qualifies as a Strategic National resource , and I think it is moving rapidly in that direction as we warm the planet-then it meets my criterion for nationalisation-ie a State Service.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Aug 29, 2022 14:14:10 GMT
Without all that, it is possible Tory support for energy nationalisation might have been even greeter than it already has been. Of course, if you consider voters overall, not just Tories, then nationalising utilities etc. has been at the centre for a long time. I posted polling to that effect from the nineties on the old board IIRC. Even back in Maggie’s day, IPSOS MORI polling indicated that her privatisations were her third most-hated policy, after NHS underfunding and Poll Tax. CARFREW As I said public sentiment is most in favour of nationalisation in areas where the suppliers face no competition, water to which you can add railways, as the data you quoted shows. The railways are a mess, but while everyone uses energy far fewer regularly use trains. I view this purely in political terms. The last thing I want to see is Labour getting bogged down in a programme of nationalisation re '24 GE, offering such easy attack lines to the Tories. If the public have an appetite for nationalisation they also have one for excess-profit taxes/beefed-up regulation, which would be far easier for Labour to fashion & debate, branding the slack Tories as the friends of profit-mongers and speculators & sh=t dumpers. Bedknobs above quoted some interesting tweets from Murphy about the "rents" earned by non-gas-using suppliers of electricity in a market where the marginal cost of units was determined by the least efficient suppliers, which added to the valiant if somewhat opague contributions of Colin & Alec on the subject of wholesale energy prices.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Aug 29, 2022 14:15:29 GMT
If I wanted to be picky, I would point out that both the carriers were built at Rosyth dockyard and both have suffered multiple problems of this kind since coming into service. That's what comes of having a Scottish PM who wanted to put business into a constituency near to his own. Dead right! Fortunately Scots voters realised that the decades of sending Brits down to Westminster had been a terrible mistake, and only now send a small sample from each of your 3 parties to remind you how unutterably awful they are.
Mind you, since the ones that we and NI do send are generally viewed with disfavour, it's obviously time for you to get shot of these places.And if we did, how long would it be before the Scottish Government came crawling back, expecting England to save them from their financial failings. You don't need a long memory to remember Fred the Shred and RBS who took over a well-run (and larger) bank in Nat West and turned it into a basket-case, or that Bank of Scotland, which had merged with Halifax, was only saved by being taken over (at Gordon Brown's behest) by Lloyds and brought that bank to its knees. What used to be called Standard Life, merged with Aberdeen Asset Management in 2017, now calls itself abrdn (yes, all lower-case) and is just about to drop out of the FTSE100 following a catastrophic fall in its share price. Scotland used to be a by-word for financial acumen a couple of generations ago, but no longer.
|
|