You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
@jambourgie you should take a look at what your local authority actually spends its budget on, I'm sure you'll find very little of it is on waste collection/disposal
I couldn't see this posted. TLDW: refusing to pay will just give the energy extra cost, to cover that cost prices will have go up.
If you really want to hurt them don't use the product ( really difficult I know).
I don't have a direct debit though, never have. Just a bill every month that I pay online. (Octopus).
Yep those dreadful unions looking after the workers.
And unless the debt is going to be written off, not paying things doesn't usually end well. A lot of people will have no choice not to pay but they will be chased for the money (bailiffs) or ultimately could be switched to pre pay where it is more expensive and if you don't pay you don't get.
The answer is very simple and Starmer is along the right lines. Just cap it and worry about the technicalities of it later - companies claiming from government, any taxing to recoup the money (or pretend to, to keep those ignorant of how it works happy)
This thread is the most depressing on this whole forum. Millions are being ripped off. It doesn’t matter who is doing it, only that the end consumer is suffering
Which is why it’s like the poll tax as that was when a lot of people said enough is enough.
So why should the government subsidize then? Or are you saying they shouldn’t either?
I don’t know the answer, just pointing out some of the facts of the situation.
And if Shell aren’t making profits from the energy supply business why the hell are they involve?
I’m pretty sure that section of my post was pointing out that, in comparison to other areas of the market they operate in, profits from their supply business is negligible. Maybe in the 1-3% margin that I actually wrote down.
Edit: It really is a case of any losses and the taxpayer should cough up, any profits and the private companies should fill their boots. Isn’t it?
And that is exactly the problem with having critical national infrastructure in the hands of private companies. A problem that may change as a result of this crisis, but not as a solution to this crisis.
And unless the debt is going to be written off, not paying things doesn’t usually end well. A lot of people will have no choice not to pay but they will be chased for the money (bailiffs) or ultimately could be switched to pre pay where it is more expensive and if you don’t pay you don’t get.
Unless they’re appointed by the crown court, bailiffs have the same power as TV License ‘enforcers’, ie; none unless you let them in. And debts get written off after six years.
All this is academic anyway, for a lot of people it will matter not a jot who’s fault it is or how wonderful Octopus are. A £5k power bill out of your dole money just isn’t happening so the government will have to do something.
Unless they’re appointed by the crown court, bailiffs have the same power as TV License ‘enforcers’, ie; none unless you let them in. And debts get written off after six years.
When it comes to fitting a prepayment meter due to debt, that is exactly what a supplier has to do if the meter is not accessible from outside (and maybe still if it is, I don’t know). They will get a warrant from the court. That process takes a while though and anyone who is actively conversing with their suppliers, and willing to pay what they can, should not end up at that stage.
All this is academic anyway, for a lot of people it will matter not a jot who’s fault it is or how wonderful Octopus are. A £5k power bill out of your dole money just isn’t happening so the government will have to do something.
Exactly this. We need a short term solution and we need it yesterday.
Nicola Sturgeon promised a national not for profit energy company in 2017. The idea was quietly dropped after reality intervened. The energy suppliers are not making huge profits.
There are things that could be done. Among them dealing with windfall profits of wind energy suppliers who haven't activated cfd schemes. Move green subsidies from bills to general taxation so the burden falls on those who are able to pay. Unlike now when the poor are subsidising green tax breaks on EVs and solar panels for the wealthy.
https://watt-logic.com/2022/08/17/energy-crisis-2/
This isn’t solely a UK issues it’s a global supply and demand challenge so impacts billions of people. Supply is short and demand is high as we’ve emerged from Covid hence the Generators (Shell, BP etc.) can command higher prices and given lack of appetite for consumers to sit in the dark and freeze the Suppliers (Octopus, Bulb etc.) have to pay higher prices and hence pass on the cost to consumers in the form of high cost per kWh. It’s a global business and the Generators sell at a price Suppliers will pay just like any other commodity. That’s why inflation is impacting most countries as energy is essential to the national economy.
France manages energy as a National Strategic Asset and generates significant energy supplies internal via nuclear and renewable. They don’t sell to the highest bidder (if supply is needed internally) and thus have a relatively low inflation rate.
The UK should look to adopt a similar model to become self sufficient in energy generation through investment and thus remove exposure to supply and demand fluctuation. Will this happen, unlikely.
And that is exactly the problem with having critical national infrastructure in the hands of private companies. A problem that may change as a result of this crisis, but not as a solution to this crisis.
The solution to 'this crises' is fairly obvious - the government has to step in and pour billions so that energy bills for both domestic and business consumers doesn't result in people being unable to heat their homes or businesses going bankrupt.
You earlier said:
It would cost billions to nationalise and then billions more to then keep the prices capped.
Slap an affordable price cap on energy bills, and I mean affordable, probably in the region of the French government price cap. If the utility companies can't operate at a loss nationalise them and let the government make up the loss - loss making companies shouldn't cost that much to buy, certainly not as much as one making a healthy profit.
When things turnaround, because this crises won't last forever, the government can reap the rewards of billions in profits every year. A cheap easy long-term solution.
Because Ernie it won't be a cheap solution and will take years to implement. We have pressing needs now, both financial and climatic, the government needs to address the current issues, not get mired in the politics and practicalities of a nationalisation program.
When things turnaround, because this crises won’t last forever, the government can reap the rewards of billions in profits every year. A cheap easy long-term solution.
That's naive at best. Remember our nationalised utilities last time around, run down, inefficient with no plans or investment to improve. Yeah lets return to the 70s, what a great decade that was.
@dazh the only ones profiting are the ones that are generating anything other than gas. Everyone else is hamstrung by the wholesale market prices and the price cap (when you have to sell below market value funnily enough you'll lose money especially if you only sell to the domestic market).
That's fact. Nothing to do with sympathy or making excuses, it is what it is.
Yes, suppliers will be hiking direct debits* to try and boost their cash balances and yes, that adversely impacts the poorest. But they don't actually own that money and as pointed out you can ask for that back at any time. What needs to happen now is to spread awareness of this and make sure people aren't paying more than they need to, I'd imagine that will at least be a start to helping the least well off who tend not to be as savvy. I expect MSE will be all over that already. Does that mean more companies may go bust? Maybe. Do I care? Not particularly, if you need extra cash to make the books look good then you're circling the drain anyway.
*my sister in law is in a one bed flat and pays almost the same for her SVR direct debit as my fix for a 2 bed house.
the Generators (Shell, BP etc.)
They're not generators unless they have wind farms I'm not aware of.
EDF, e-on, Drax, SSE etc. are generators.
Remember our nationalised utilities last time around, run down, inefficient with no plans or investment to improve
Rubbish, there was loads of investment in generation from the 70s onwards. Torness, Heysham 2, Inverkip and Sizewell B were all built to order by SSEB/CEGB. Yes, there was wastage and wholesale thievery going on but don't think for a minute that never continued under privatisation.
And thanks to decent unions I have a job worth having. But don't worry because their power has all but been diluted to the detriment of my pension and other terms and conditions so I'm joining you on the race to the bottom. Maybe if more folk put their energy into pulling themselves up rather than dragging others down we wouldn't be in this mess.
I don’t view this as a crisis in terms of its going to go away. The energy price is the new normal (if we let it) and eventually wages will catch up to make it affordable again. Depressing but true.
Consumers and Businesses will need (additional) short term help as we did with furlough payments. For the longer term government need to make investment in energy with the UK attractive to sort out long term supply with the proviso of supplying at an agreed price to UK first. A windfall tax is unlikely to achieve that outcome unless Generators can offset tax against creating additional UK based generation capacity.
They’re not generators unless they have wind farms I’m not aware of.
EDF, e-on, Drax, SSE etc. are generators.
They don’t extract gas for power station operations either so what’s your point.
To me the cap should be on kw used
A system like tax where everone gets 12500k free of tax
So say ave house usage is 12k kw gas 3k kw leccy, this is allocated to all as a livable basic amount at a genuinly affordable price for all.
Theres incentive to save money and insentive to save the planet
After that the unit price shoots up,
But we all have an affordable livable discounted allowance .
you use your discounted livable allowance how feel fit, if thats to heat hot tub a swimming pool 5 bed house etc they are all luxury choices at you pay for it, the same scheme on water and petrol/deisel
If u need to keep the 4 Audis gleaming at all times stood by by the lush green lawn you pay for that pointless waste of water resourses
But we have allhad a basic li able afforable amount at a genuine price.
There willve plenty folk who will still have the house at a permenant 27degrees sparkling cars to make the suits billions,
Yeah lets return to the 70s, what a great decade that was.
Well we are being told that we are currently enjoying the lowest levels of unemployment since the 1970s so I'm not too sure how bad you think things were.
And certainly utility bills were affordable - I don't think the term "fuel poverty" existed in the 1970s. In the case of water domestic consumers didn't even get a bill! The cost was included in council rates - which were far more affordable than the current council tax regime.
That’s naive at best.
And has overwhelming widespread public support. Even among Tory voters, let alone Labour and LibDem voters
In fact 56% of Tory voters support bringing energy companies back into public ownership. Only 7% strongly oppose it. And only 3% of all voters strongly oppose it. That was back in May, I suspect that those opposing are even less now.
Based on the much repeated and rather sanctimonious stw consensus that half of voters are of below average intelligence you have to assume that the other half are of above average intelligence, it would appear that voters of above average intelligence support nationalisation, as well as being naive.
And that those on here who are strongly arguing against the nationalisation of the energy companies share that opinion with a tiny minority of the electorate.
We've asked the energy companies and supply systems to reduce what they sell through 'green' initiatives. A bit like asking the local drug dealer to stop selling us something we are addicted too, use too much of and don't need to use as much in the first place.
Imo, change the system. Energy companies sell energy at a fixed overall cost per M2. Anything that can be saved = bigger profits. They will soon work blooming hard on both physical changes, business model changes and customer behaviour changes
They don’t extract gas for power station operations either so what’s your point.
I thought that was clear?
BP and Shell are not generators, the companies I listed are.
What you are saying is equivalent to claiming farmers are bakers because they grow wheat. They're not.
And certainly utility bills were affordable – I don’t think the term “fuel poverty” existed in the 1970s.
Probably because heating wasn’t on 24hrs a day at 20+ degrees. Ice on the inside of windows was a normal winter occurrence.
Most houses also had coal fires, and coal was cheap. And many had no central heating still.
Yeah lets return to the 70s, what a great decade that was.
A choice between now and the 70's and the 70's gets it for me.
The best period in the UK for equality, happiness levels were high (I know, measuring methods aside), processed food crap only just kicking off, no mass imports of crap, in country production higher etc, etc,.
If the utility companies can’t operate at a loss nationalise them and let the government make up the loss – loss making companies shouldn’t cost that much to buy, certainly not as much as one making a healthy profit.
Can you clarify exactly what you mean by ‘Utility companies’?
Because at the moment it sounds like you are talking about the likes of Octopus, Bulb, Shell etc. As has been pointed out many times, these companies are not the cause of the current crisis.
Let’s talk about profits. They are pretty narrow in the energy supply business, and the only way companies are staying afloat is a combination of innovation and efficiency. We the customers don’t see it but it’s happening. Two of the largest suppliers are currently (or have recently completed) a replay form of their entire customer management software - a huge undertaking that has been done on a remarkably tight budget with minimal customer impact. All to reduce operating costs so they can remain competitive. Having seen how the government handles anything I just can’t see any situation where a nationalised energy supply business maintains in the manner you describe maintains any level of efficiency.
What the nation needs is a complete redesign of how we obtain, distribute, store and supply energy. Get the foundations of the infrastructure right, and the rest can follow.
Just looks at Bulb, the ‘nationalised’ energy company, to see how it doesn’t work with the current system.
I can remember my dad installing central heating maybe 1976 ish, it was normal that you heated the room you were in, and being a family that was normally one room, not one each with every room lights on telly etc....
You went to bed and were a bit chilly for 3 minutes until ya warmed up...not a problem im not dead or mentally scarred at all
Most houses also had coal fires
That really isn't true. Certainly not down south or in the metropolises.
Ice on the inside of windows was a normal winter occurrence.
Ice generally was a more common occurrence in winter - fire brigades were often called to deal with huge dangerous icicles hanging from roofs. Winters were much colder then, despite no one talking of fuel poverty.
Well looks like we're going to experience it all again, low unemployment (for now), energy crisis, ineffectual government, wide spread industrial unrest, heat waves and drought orders. Maybe flares will make a return.
Oh and of course there was fuel poverty in the 70s, we just didn't have a name for it then.
70s were great times, I remember my dad having to light the fire to get the back boiler going for hot water, my grand parents who still had an outside loo, the long term decline of British industry, people smoking like chimneys, yellow offices and factory canteens you couldn't see the other side of. Rubbish in the streets and power cuts. Unions dictating how things were run (into the ground). Open racism and sexism on the telly, rampant homophobia. Fossil fuel consumption with no understanding of the environmental impact, the start of the throw away culture, nylon clothes (now micro plastics in the oceans), disco, no thanks.
I'll give you the equality thing though, think social mobility probably peaked in the early 80s, been going downhill ever since.
Because at the moment it sounds like you are talking about the likes of Octopus, Bulb, Shell etc. As has been pointed out many times, these companies are not the cause of the current crisis.
Yes I am talking about them, because it is them who send the energy bills to the customers. If they can't hold prices down without making a loss then nationalise them and let the government carry the loss.
Obviously when things change and there are profits to be made the government keeps the profit. I think most people would see that as reasonable.
That really isn’t true. Certainly not down south or in the metropolises.
Very much so in the East Midlands (heart of the coal industries). A lot who worked in the pits got free coal. And many family, friends and blokes down the pub shared this free coal! 😀
Yes I am talking about them, because it is them who send the energy bills to the customers. If they can’t hold prices down without making a loss then nationalise them and let the government carry the loss.
I think we both know that, no matter what any of us think, that’s not going to happen.
Obviously when things change and there are profits to be made the government keeps the profit. I think most people would see that as reasonable.
If the supply businesses alone are nationalised, the government will never see any profits. They can’t run an efficient operation if their life depended on it.
The companies that extract/generate/distribute/ as well as the wholesale resellers will continue to turn huge profits and those profits will be subsidised by the government. Nationalising the supply companies would achieve nothing at best if the rest of the supply chain is not addressed. I wouldn’t even class it as a good start.
Oh and of course there was fuel poverty in the 70s, we just didn’t have a name for it then.
No. There was definitely poverty but not specifically fuel poverty - that is a term which has slowly crept into usage. Which since privatisation and competition was suppose to reduce prices for consumers is all the more remarkable. And no doubt the primary reason why the UK public overwhelmingly no longer support privatisation of the utilities.
Economic growth and productivity were higher in the 70's than now.
If the supply businesses alone are nationalised, the government will never see any profits <Maybe, maybe not, depends on economic conditions>. They can’t run an efficient operation if their life depended on it. <This I think is hilarious, yet so common - do you have any experience running big infrastructure to base this on? People always come out with this based on their experience from small shops, offices, but this big stuff is not easy to do>
I'd bear in mind that within the last five years you could buy oil so cheaply that it actually went negative (locally in Texas)... I didn't see a big cry to support companies then but stabilising the prices wouldn't hurt anyone
I think we both know that, no matter what any of us think, that’s not going to happen.
Go back to summer 2008 and no one thought the UK govt would nationalise RBS and Lloyds bank. We’re at exactly the same point in this crisis. All these arguments about the pros and cons of nationalisation are irrelevant in the face of economic collapse. If the govt doesn’t take the required action to protect households and businesses then the economy will collapse. Think about what that means for a second and then try to make argument that nationalisation of energy isn’t possible.
This I think is hilarious, yet so common – do you have any experience running big infrastructure to base this on?
Yes.
People always come out with this based on their experience from small shops, offices, but this big stuff is not easy to do
And yet here we are, embroiled in a debate as to whether energy supply businesses should be brought into control of the government who have minimal experience of successfully running energy supply businesses in the current climate.
In the grander scheme of things, the energy supply market is not a hard one to enter (compared to many others). There are businesses out there who offer services to companies who wish to do exactly that. But you only need to look at how the government selected contracts during covid to know that those companies with demonstrable expertise in an area would likely be overlooked for such an undertaking in favour of ‘preferred contractors’ costing us the taxpayers even more money.
So yes, while you may find it hilarious, I think we all have good cause for mistrusting the government with such undertakings, especially during a crisis.
the share values might dip, but that only benefits the wealthy again as they hoover up some extra cheap shares which are almost guaranteed to rise again a few months later…
im not a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but i often feel that anonymous people pushing a campaign may be doing so for their own ends.
Go back to summer 2008 and no one thought the UK govt would nationalise RBS and Lloyds bank. We’re at exactly the same point in this crisis. All these arguments about the pros and cons of nationalisation are irrelevant in the face of economic collapse. If the govt doesn’t take the required action to protect households and businesses then the economy will collapse. Think about what that means for a second and then try to make argument that nationalisation of energy isn’t possible.
Good point well made. You are absolutely right about the risk of economic collapse - and something has to be done. I think one of the main differences in 2008 compared to now is we actually had a government. It could happen… but I still think it won’t. We’ll get some government funded price cap to maintain the status quo.
Maybe I’m just too cynical.
Our govt really have lost the plot (more then before?!)
From the Guardian this morning...
GPs could write prescriptions for money off energy bills for the most vulnerable under a plan drawn up by the Treasury
😆 That'll help the pressure on the NHS!
It would cost billions to nationalise and then billions more to then keep the prices capped.
Yawn. So what, government gains an asset and can always afford it.
That's got to be better than money coming out of your pocket.
All these arguments about the pros and cons of nationalisation are irrelevant in the face of economic collapse. If the govt doesn’t take the required action to protect households and businesses then the economy will collapse. Think about what that means for a second and then try to make argument that nationalisation of energy isn’t possible.
Yep possible and probably should happen but I fear it will be another opportunity for another government smash and grab to their buds and a very short term fix.ie protect the profits by some mechanism.
The power crisis is greater than the consumer bills shops,offices manufacturing all use power and it will have to be passed on so everything goes up and if it’s not viable to keep the lights on then stuff goes pop.
Go back to summer 2008 and no one
thought the UK govt would nationalise RBS and Lloyds bank. We’re at exactly the same point in this crisis. All these arguments about the pros and cons of nationalisation are irrelevant in the face of economic collapse. If the govt doesn’t take the required action to protect households and businesses then the economy will collapse. Think about what that means for a second and then try to make argument that nationalisation of energy isn’t possible.
People would sooner prop up shareholders and private companies than benefit from a state owned asset!
They're off their heads.
We're way past supporting failed private essential utilities aren't we?
There won't be any other way come the next few months. When an essential utility fails it will be to the state to make it function.
We haven't even got to the big bills yet and watch the house of cards when people who purchased houses on low interest rates feel the pinch.
Macro-economic conditions are dire.
GPs could write prescriptions for money off energy bills for the most vulnerable under a plan drawn up by the Treasury
A cunning plan, as it's well known that it's nearly impossible to see a GP..!
Tbh, it'll probably end up like a new housing benefit. Nothing to stop parasites charging thousands for a roof over your head, you just claim the rent from the council to pay it. Just make sure you never get a job otherwise you'll become liable.
I've not read the whole thread but ...
Don’t really understand it, they may raise direct debits but they’ll still only charge you for what you use, you could go to paying the specific usage off each month instead but it’ll still cost the same overall?
Think a lot of people just see the monthly direct debit and assume that’s the actual cost of their fuel usage when it isn’t.
The whole point of DD was to prevent consumers controlling their bill (based on the lie that most poor people can't budget**). The basis is to make the consumer feel helpless because if it comes to feeding the kids this month or paying for energy they didn't use yet they can only change one of those.
It used to be and didn't check but you can't just pay monthly for what you use... it was legislated that the energy company could either do a DD with smoothing for pay quarterly... thus taking away the option of being able to use what you can afford over a specific pay period.
I know some people above say they have changed theirs based on usage, going back my experience was changing the amount was between impossible and designed to be near impossible.
At the time I just paid the extra for quarterly billing. This MIGHT have changed or changed for some suppliers.. but I certainly think most consumers either don't know they can or can't work out how.
** They can't budget because they are not in control of what their energy company charges, not because they can't control their usage and that's a big difference.
There is also loads of BS going about how cancelling the DD will get people in trouble... when obviously at this time of year the energy company OWES THEM money.
It’s a global price rise and the problem isn’t with your energy supplier so why penalise them?
Energy supplier is a misleading term. The company/entity that bills you is simply billing you they aren't producing the energy or delivering it.
In some cases they may be part of the same umbrella company as generation and in other cases not but the electrons or molecules of gas coming into your house for which you are being billed are not the same ones. They might also be part of the same umbrella company that does the trading or does the production but again they are isolated..
They don't own or control the infrastructure that is used to deliver to you either.. so basically their entire involvement is to meter and bill.
Acknowledging the danger of sounding like Mick Lynch they really shouldn't exist as a non nationalised company. It seems to me their entire existence is they get allowed to make mediocre profits for taking the blame for the cost of energy (not just in this current time)
Is that their fault ??? Certainly in part they took it on knowing the situation.
So although current prices aren't specifically their fault their continued existence is.
They’re off their heads.
Yup. Unless they’re a major shareholder or an executive in one of these companies it’s astonishing that anyone on here is against nationalisation. The neo-liberal brainwashing runs very deep.
People would sooner prop up shareholders and private companies than benefit from a state owned asset!
Some people, myself included, would rather see a complete systematic change to how critical national infrastructure is owned and managed. A supply company alone is not much of an asset - not without wrapping it up with the distribution and generation side of things. Nationalising the folks who send the bills first as a knee jerk to the current crisis will not achieve this, it would be an expensive sticking plaster at best. It would probably mean it is even less likely that we see the stuff that really counts being brought into state ownership.
They’re off their heads.
or looking at the issue with a different viewpoint.
We’re way past supporting failed private essential utilities aren’t we?
You’re right, we are. So why are all the conversations primarily about nationalising the company who (and I am being overly simplistic here) only works out the bills? Rather than the actual companies who generate, store and deliver the utilities? I would gladly support any effort that took into account the whole picture.
There won’t be any other way come the next few months. When an essential utility fails it will be to the state to make it function.
Since the lens seems to be pointed at the suppliers, first the state has to force them to fail with a price cap so low that they cannot continue to operate. Something I see as being very unlikely to happen. Which means the only way to do it right is for government legislation to bring all critical national infrastructure into state ownership - which if done correctly would be awesome.
The neo-liberal brainwashing runs very deep
Was just thinking that.
If you've been sold an idea that appears to have delivered the UK dream of high leverage debt (see 50 mortgages FFS) then it's hard to crack your brain.
or looking at the issue with a different viewpoint.
That viewpoint doesn't carry a practical and ethical sense of the situation for the well-being of people who will suffer.
Things will always be better if you've got lots money to make choices.
You’re right, we are. So why are all the conversations primarily about nationalising the company who (and I am being overly simplistic here) only works out the bills? Rather than the actual companies who generate, store and deliver the utilities? I would gladly support any effort that took into account the whole picture.
I agree it's is a short and long-term process.
But technically one element has failed if you're a consumer.
So why are all the conversations primarily about nationalising the company who (and I am being overly simplistic here) only works out the bills?
Even more so, the OP was suggesting we refuse to pay them. A few have pointed out the likely repercussion, or that they're not the right target, and the same few wade in and hand out the 'turkeys voting for Christmas' abuse.
Change is needed, and I kind of get that it sends a message, but it's not a rational response.
Right, I'm off to burn down my local bakers, after they had the temerity to put the price of a loaf up in response to the cost of wheat increasing.
Collective direction action does change things.
History tells us that. You just need a lot of people to do it.
That viewpoint doesn’t carry a practical and ethical sense of the situation for the well-being of people who will suffer.
How do you know?
(Mine does, btw)
It is possible to be against an quick and ill thought out reaction to a crisis while still recognising how much of a crisis it is, especially for those who can afford it least. It is alreadya crisis for those with the April increase.
Right now I personally think all our (absent) government efforts should be focused on helping people and they follow up with a change in energy strategy. Last thing I want is any potential benefit to folks get embroiled in this battles over nationalising these companies - and I don’t see any situation where that won’t happen in some way.
direct action against the right targets though. I'm not suggesting that the providers should be running amok racking up huge profits and paying shareholder dividends left right and centre, but (at the risk of again being labelled an Octapologist) they aren't. They're being squeezed in the middle by ever increasing RM pricing at one end and price caps and now the threat of direct action at the other.
direct action against the right targets though.
I think some people here are missing the point. 'Not paying' is something everyone can do. And lets be honest, everyone likes not paying out money if they don't have to so it makes it easy. A lot easier than trying to get the masses to write letters to their MP's or whatever. Above all, it makes a bloody good noise, and good content for the media. And the government can be influenced by the media...
Right now I personally think all our (absent) government efforts should be focused on helping people and they follow up with a change in energy strategy.
This. We need both a way to get through this winter, and long term reform of our energy sector. They are not the same thing. But both needed to have been started at some point in the past, both are pressing, but the long term reform can’t be in place by Christmas. Many people can’t wait. On both counts… what the **** is the UK waiting for?
On both counts… what the **** is the UK waiting for?
A new prime minister apparently.
Fat lot of good she’ll be.
Nationalising the folks who send the bills first as a knee jerk to the current crisis will not achieve this, it would be an expensive sticking plaster at best. It would probably mean it is even less likely that we see the stuff that really counts being brought into state ownership.
Right, I’m off to burn down my local bakers, after they had the temerity to put the price of a loaf up in response to the cost of wheat increasing.
The two are completely different things..the bakers is interesting as Rome understood full well the importance of subsiding grain for the plebs and Marie Antionette didn't...
1) . your local baker makes (bakes) bread and sells it.
Your "utility" (billing company) very simplistically owns the right to bill you.
2) you don't need to buy bread and if you choose to you can buy it where-ever..
3) Your baker is paying more for wheat, delivery and heating the ovens not just wheat.. they aren't a business whose sole existence is billing you for bread
4) The purpose of your baker is to make and sell bread... the only real purpose of the energy companies is to make profits and take the blame for prices. This works out great for the executives.. they get a fat paycheck and don't care if the com[any is seen as the bad guy..after all that's why they get the pay checks.
So to answer the former ...
Nationalising the folks who send the bills first as a knee jerk to the current crisis will not achieve this, it would be an expensive sticking plaster at best. It would probably mean it is even less likely that we see the stuff that really counts being brought into state ownership.
The folks who send the bills are not folks, they are companies and they are companies that just shouldn't exist but do because they provide a screen you can't get to "the stuff that really counts" until you remove the stinking bandage that's hiding it.
How do you know?
(Mine does, btw)
Because the energy supplier market has ceased to function without government intervention.
I don't know that there's another viewpoint.
Because the energy supplier market has ceased to function without government intervention.
I don’t know that there’s another viewpoint.
You pretty much stated that any any view that differed from your own “doesn’t carry a practical and ethical sense of the situation for the well-being of people who will suffer.”
I gave you what I believed what another viewpoint that did not fit with your statement. One that basically says we should focus on helping people and then fix the entire energy sector properly. Genuinely unsure of the counter point you are making - I’m sure we both agree that the energy sector as a whole is now unfit for purpose.
Nationalising the folks who send the bills first as a knee jerk to the current crisis will not achieve this, it would be an expensive sticking plaster at best. It would probably mean it is even less likely that we see the stuff that really counts being brought into state ownership.
Bulb is more or less controlled by the state. It is nationalised now in broad terms. It's in the special adminstration regime, and under control through ofgem and the government's funding.
Nationalisation is already underway! It's just been done in a way to avoid be labelled so.
I gave you what I believed what another viewpoint that did not fit with your statement. One that basically says we should focus on helping people and then fix the entire energy sector properly
What you have done about Bulb then given it was close to collapse? This was back in November 2021. That was your signpost.
I've said in another thread helping people with bills and nationalisation are not mutually exclusive.
Bulb is more or less controlled by the state. It is nationalised now in broad terms. It’s in the special adminstration regime, and under control through ofgem and the government’s funding.
I’m genuinely interested to see how Bulb reacts to this round of the price cap. I think that will be most telling as to how much government appetite there is to push it further. As far as I can tell right now, they have just followed the pack with prices.
Because the energy supplier market has ceased to function without government intervention.
I don’t know that there’s another viewpoint.
The other viewpoint is the energy billing market IS and always has been direct government intervention.
Bulb is more or less controlled by the state. It is nationalised now in broad terms. It’s in the special adminstration regime, and under control through ofgem and the government’s funding.
Nationalisation is already underway! It’s just been done in a way to avoid be labelled so.
I'd argue its the complete opposite to nationalising the industry and avoiding it.
In terms of importance I see getting rid of billing companies as more urgent than power generation.
It's possible (not necessarily preferable) that the entire post generation stream could just purchase energy from whoever can supply it cheapest... and market competition is driving costs at the generation end only.
It’s possible (not necessarily preferable) that the entire post generation stream could just purchase energy from whoever can supply it cheapest… and market competition is driving costs at the generation end only.
What are your thoughts on one monopoly state supplier going to the producers?
Surely that would be a big bag of clout?
The other viewpoint is the energy billing market IS and always has been direct government intervention
Fair comment.
Martin Lewis said it was neither it was the worst of all worlds.
Personally the intervention doesn't seem to do that much in my eyes.
I think from a consumer pont of view it's as shoddy as hell. The billing systems is a confusing mess and swapping about is nowhere near as south as they lead you to believe.
Customer services is appalling too.
I just can't see the point in several suppliers.
Smooth not 'South.' Wally.
Things do tend to go South quickly when you dare to swap.
Just have a state operated biller, and let the others fight for survival. People would swap to the state operated biller more and more as each energy crisis hits (this won’t be the last one).
Here are some suggestions to save consumers £1500 per year. Easily done by a determined govt. But not sure we have that.
Bulb bail-out bill likely to exceed £4 billion - per FT.
The threat or the actuality of people not paying their bills will force the government to do something. If nothing is done before cap increases I will either stop paying or reduce my DD.
'Don't Pay'
And they'll take your TV away 😆
You’re right, we are. So why are all the conversations primarily about nationalising the company who (and I am being overly simplistic here) only works out the bills? Rather than the actual companies who generate, store and deliver the utilities? I would gladly support any effort that took into account the whole picture.
Is that the conversation that was happening?
I had assumed when we started talking about re-nationalising the energy sector we meant the whole lot from purchasing gas through to generation and distribution and of course those billing outfits...
As pointed out earlier your billing company may well be a separate arm of a larger commercial outfit that does all of those things already.
The example of RBS back on 2008 is a particularly good one actually. "Too big to fail" so we dipped into the kitty and bought a substantial chunk of a bank (was it a controlling share?). Anyway it amounted to something quite close to nationalisation, and meant the bank had a major shareholder that could put up with losses for far longer than any pension fund or private investors would. I'm pretty sure having seen them though that particular rough patch the government have since divested themselves of those shares.
But there's your short term "solution" government buy up of shares in energy sector companies concerned about cap derived losses and the regulator can set truly affordable caps without worrying about those poor old investors and breaking yet more companies... Still a short term solution, but one for which there's a degree of precedent and which can be implemented relatively fast (if you have some sort of functional government)...
Longer term there's a wider discussion to be had perhaps about public Vs private delivery of energy and infrastructure and ultimately security of supply, how we ween ourselves off of gas and meet growing leccy demands, where the investment comes from for that and who should ultimately see any derived profits.
But now isn't the time, the issue today is shoring up the system that exists and insulating the most vulnerable from unaffordable energy prices. Otherwise Lizzie's first few months in power will see pensioners and the poor freezing to death...
Just looks at Bulb, the ‘nationalised’ energy company, to see how it doesn’t work with the current system.
If I remember correctly, Bulb are now hamstrung by not being able to hedge due to government restrictions which were not present when Bulb was private, this means Bulb is very expensive for the government to run.
There's a lot of naivety going on here. If just the bill collectors were nationalised what makes you think this is going to be of any use in bringing down costs? The new nationalised body would still have to buy the power from the wholesale market but with the benefit of a blank chequebook. I can't possibly see any way that could go wrong from an undeclared (or uncared) conflict of interest.
That's actually the last bit I'd nationalise. Even now Scotrail is "government run" but Abellio is still providing the same back of house services they were before as a contractor.
As others have said, the whole lot needs done starting with generation along with the long called for reforms to the wholesale market.
There’s a lot of naivety going on here.
Is there?
I mean those of us in favour of a "nationalised” energy sector (or at least share buyouts) are perhaps a bit more focussed on the idea of buffering the inevitable losses that come from charging affordable prices this winter, exploiting (most likely eroding) our own national credit rating. Otherwise what's the point of having it?
Gas suppliers, generation and distribution outfits will all get their (fixed) costs covered, so ultimately it's going to end up being those billing companies that carry on making losses stuck in the middle, restrained by affordable caps, so why not buy that debt out in the short to medium term?
For all our naivety I don't hear any real alternative solutions being put forward, aside from letting the poor freeze and/or starve to death this winter...
I wasn't talking about you, I agree with your approach, more the folk that think just nationalising the suppliers is a useful solution. Maybe if you're a shareholder with SSE, OVO or such but otherwise it isn't actually fixing anything. The prices are a symptom, if you just treat that then the problem will never be solved.
If I remember correctly, Bulb are now hamstrung by not being able to hedge due to government restrictions which were not present when Bulb was private, this means Bulb is very expensive for the government to run.
Other than the fact the government can always afford it.
The government's purse is not financially constrained. Ours is.
Hedging didn't appear to keep Bulb from collapsing. There was a lot of people's credit on the books too.
Government gains an asset through nationalisation.
People forget this when they talk about the 'cost'.
What's the value of the "asset" in this case? Its just a middleman between the generators and customers that makes marginal profit for their trouble. That's why nationalising only that part is a hiding to nothing.
Reform of the wholesale market, on the other hand, would stop penalising renewables for their distance from "the market" (ie SW England) and also allow cheaper sources of energy to mitigate against gas generation costs.
Nationalise the generators and you have the market rather than the service.
Government gains an asset through nationalisation.
Of an energy supply company that's never made a profit? seems scant return.
Of an energy supply company that’s never made a profit? seems scant return.
Then the *competitive* suppliers market shouldn't exist in the first place because then government doesn't need to make profit to serve its customers.
It's not a immediate return it's just something to stick on the balance sheet - it can generate employment too. It's of some value to society.
Especially if the whole lot is centralised and is one big purchaser.
(Bulb made 180 million gross in 2020 and employed 1000 people.)
Government gains an asset through nationalisation.
People forget this when they talk about the ‘cost’.
Unless it steals the asset from the shareholders it gains an asset at the expense of increased national debt. Or takes over a lossmaking "asset" and thereafter needs to cover the annual losses.
Then the *competitive* suppliers market shouldn’t exist in the first place because then government doesn’t need to make profit to serve its customers.
Correct, they shouldn't. It was always just a competition between them to see who could administer a purchasing and billing process for the cheapest cost, and however cheaply they did it was still a layer of bureaucracy that the end customer needs to pay for.
Unless it steals the asset from the shareholders it gains an asset at the expense of increased national debt. Or takes over a lossmaking “asset” and thereafter needs to cover the annual losses.
1) Increased national debt is of no significance to the average punter. It's not a debt the government pays back in the same way you or I do. I've done hundreds of posts explaining this.
2) Some of these shareholders have had a good run - and given the companies aren't making money - it looks like the gamble of being a shareholder is not paying off now. That's the risk you take.
Bulb is already propped by the government - I bet the shareholder's were very pleased with that actually as opposed to going bust.
There's only a tiny amount of individual share holders - mostly big investment firms that only existed to drain money.
Maybe if you’re a shareholder with SSE, OVO or such but otherwise it isn’t actually fixing anything. The prices are a symptom, if you just treat that then the problem will never be solved.
Agreed, but I'm not talking about long term solutions here, the clock has been ticking for some time and will bring real people to a crisis point within the next few months.
With a zombie government no meaningful action has been taken and when the season changes it will be too late. Share buyouts and government bearing the losses will only be a sticking plaster to see us through to Q2-23' maybe, but it is something Liz could enact on day one (I doubt she will though)...
Longer term I'm still a believer in wholesale re-nationalisation of the UK's energy sector, but I accept that is both complex and well beyond the ideological boundaries of a Tory government, it would mean doing the deals to take both loss making and profitable organisations into national ownership some shareholder's will jump at the chance to offload losses, others will want to hold onto a golden goose. it would also essentially be a tacit admission that the free market has failed at something, unthinkable for some I know...
The other, longer term, but very important, project needs to be UK energy security, alternatives to imported gas, low or zero carbon sources. Various technologies exist already but investment is needed and yet again I am in favour of using public money to develop our national energy generation and distribution capabilities, as once it slips into private ownership we'll be heading towards escalating prices and minimal reinvestment yet again...