ok, fair comment, it will be interseting to see what price it does settle at by the end of the week. A lot will depend on the market generally next week.
Next up...the £46.5bn student loan book is now being reviewed for a potential sale to the private sector.
And next year will be Urenco, the uranium enrichment company owned by the UK, Germany & Holland. Valued at up to £12bn and being eyed by private equity, mining & nuclear companies.
The privatisation of all our services will not lead to a good deal for the majority of the population.
This is totally wrong. In most cases there is little doubt that services provided by private companies are cheaper and more efficient than state owned. Governments of all colour have over decades shown themselves useless as running things. That is not their job either so it is not surprising. That does not mean there does not be government regulation
The privatisation of all our services will not lead to a good deal for the majority of the population.
This is totally wrong. In most cases there is little doubt that services provided by private companies are cheaper and more efficient than state owned. Governments of all colour have over decades shown themselves useless as running things. That is not their job either so it is not surprising. That does not mean there does not be government regulation
Agreed redman, to a certain extent. What would be preferable would be for a UK PLC, run by competent businesspeople in each field, to actually manage in our interests, be that the rail, mail or energy sectors or other areas which should be held in our hands, rather than available for excessive profits to those who can then hold us to ransom.
You would have to pay management the going rate for the sector, but they would have a duty to the public/Treasury rather than shareholders. I certainly wouldn't advocate re-nationalisation without expertise to manage and deliver.
The privatisation of all our services will not lead to a good deal for the majority of the population.
This is totally wrong. In most cases there is little doubt that services provided by private companies are cheaper and more efficient than state owned. Governments of all colour have over decades shown themselves useless as running things. That is not their job either so it is not surprising. That does not mean there does not be government regulation
The only way it works is with strong regulation, of which there has been none. This is why prices have skyrockets in every single service that has been sold off.
The NHS is proof that the government actually isn't that bad at running things, you can complain about it, but it doesn't stop it being one of the best healthcares in the world.
The privatisation of all our services will not lead to a good deal for the majority of the population.
This is totally wrong. In most cases there is little doubt that services provided by private companies are cheaper and more efficient than state owned. Governments of all colour have over decades shown themselves useless as running things. That is not their job either so it is not surprising. That does not mean there does not be government regulation
Just out of interest, could you give a few examples of where you think the consumer or end user of the service provided has benefited? As in not the shareholders or the government but those who have little or no alternative to buy their water, use that train line, etc.
The privatisation of all our services will not lead to a good deal for the majority of the population.
This is totally wrong. In most cases there is little doubt that services provided by private companies are cheaper and more efficient than state owned. Governments of all colour have over decades shown themselves useless as running things. That is not their job either so it is not surprising. That does not mean there does not be government regulation
Just out of interest, could you give a few examples of where you think the consumer or end user of the service provided has benefited? As in not the shareholders or the government but those who have little or no alternative to buy their water, use that train line, etc.
What I recall of British Rail is pre-war cattle tracks that would occasionally turn up, when the drivers weren't on strike, freezing, damp and smelling of various bodily secretions.
I remember my dad telling me it would take 20 minutes to get to London in the 60s compared to the 30 minutes it took us in the 90s. Speaking of which, great service by South-Eastern this week...
The privatisation of all our services will not lead to a good deal for the majority of the population.
This is totally wrong. In most cases there is little doubt that services provided by private companies are cheaper and more efficient than state owned. Governments of all colour have over decades shown themselves useless as running things. That is not their job either so it is not surprising. That does not mean there does not be government regulation
The only way it works is with strong regulation, of which there has been none. This is why prices have skyrockets in every single service that has been sold off.
The NHS is proof that the government actually isn't that bad at running things, you can complain about it, but it doesn't stop it being one of the best healthcares in the world.
The implication on price rises is not true. The main reason price rises have happened for energy companies are economic (higher world prices) and political (green initiatives). It is probably true that some more regulation is needed, but the biggest driver should be "competition". If you can save £200 by going to a shop next door people will automatically do it but there is a resistance of doing it with energy. Getting people over this barrier will make a big difference because competition is the best way of keeping prices as low as economically possible.
Millibands price freeze beggars belief at his economic naivety and in fact he has already started to back away from that being a cast iron guarantee.
I remember my dad telling me it would take 20 minutes to get to London in the 60s compared to the 30 minutes it took us in the 90s. Speaking of which, great service by South-Eastern this week...
How many people took this journey in the 60s compared to the 90s?
I remember my dad telling me it would take 20 minutes to get to London in the 60s compared to the 30 minutes it took us in the 90s. Speaking of which, great service by South-Eastern this week...
How many people took this journey in the 60s compared to the 90s?
Good point, but this was during an off peak journey and he was talking about peak time.
The privatisation of all our services will not lead to a good deal for the majority of the population.
This is totally wrong. In most cases there is little doubt that services provided by private companies are cheaper and more efficient than state owned. Governments of all colour have over decades shown themselves useless as running things. That is not their job either so it is not surprising. That does not mean there does not be government regulation
The only way it works is with strong regulation, of which there has been none. This is why prices have skyrockets in every single service that has been sold off.
The NHS is proof that the government actually isn't that bad at running things, you can complain about it, but it doesn't stop it being one of the best healthcares in the world.
You don't remember how much British Telecom used to charge for telephone calls when they were part of The post Office do you? Following de-nationalisation we had 18 consecutive years of "lower than RPI" tariff changes.
The privatisation of all our services will not lead to a good deal for the majority of the population.
This is totally wrong. In most cases there is little doubt that services provided by private companies are cheaper and more efficient than state owned. Governments of all colour have over decades shown themselves useless as running things. That is not their job either so it is not surprising. That does not mean there does not be government regulation
Just out of interest, could you give a few examples of where you think the consumer or end user of the service provided has benefited? As in not the shareholders or the government but those who have little or no alternative to buy their water, use that train line, etc.
What I recall of British Rail is pre-war cattle tracks that would occasionally turn up, when the drivers weren't on strike, freezing, damp and smelling of various bodily secretions.
......waiting rooms freezing and full of the same "emissions' odour" or closed due to vandalism.........ah, the golden age of nationalised industries. Then there was the GPO, responsible not just for the postal service but all telecommunications........6 month wait to get a phone installed........LOL.
The privatisation of all our services will not lead to a good deal for the majority of the population.
This is totally wrong. In most cases there is little doubt that services provided by private companies are cheaper and more efficient than state owned. Governments of all colour have over decades shown themselves useless as running things. That is not their job either so it is not surprising. That does not mean there does not be government regulation
The only way it works is with strong regulation, of which there has been none. This is why prices have skyrockets in every single service that has been sold off.
The NHS is proof that the government actually isn't that bad at running things, you can complain about it, but it doesn't stop it being one of the best healthcares in the world.
The implication on price rises is not true. The main reason price rises have happened for energy companies are economic (higher world prices) and political (green initiatives). It is probably true that some more regulation is needed, but the biggest driver should be "competition". If you can save £200 by going to a shop next door people will automatically do it but there is a resistance of doing it with energy. Getting people over this barrier will make a big difference because competition is the best way of keeping prices as low as economically possible.
Millibands price freeze beggars belief at his economic naivety and in fact he has already started to back away from that being a cast iron guarantee.
He has merely acknowledged that if commodity prices rose massively, it would not be possible to freeze. He doesn't want the companies to run at a loss and that possibility requires a contingency! That should always be a proviso of the price freeze pledge and merely shows he is being realistic and it is mischevious for opponents to use this to suggest otherwise. Either that, or they don't undertsand what he is proposing!
even if that is the case it makes it a totally worthless pledge. Energy companies would be running at a loss had they not increased prices over the last few years.
It's perfectly simple. If the energy market is "broken" (whatever that actually means) it is because the 6 Energy Suppliers (who used to number more than double that after privatisation until mergers freely permitted under Blair and Brown) have managed to create an oligopoly and thereby "fix" prices to their collective benefit. There is in fact no evidence of this - certainly c.10% price rises and the fact that the suppliers make profits per se do not provide evidence as such. It is actually in the consumers' interest, aswell as that of the shareholders, for the energy suppliers to make profits sufficient to encourage investment in future energy supply. But even if the price rises did demonstrate the existence of an anti-competitive oligopoly, the answer is to break up the oligopoly and require some of the largest suppliers to sell parts of their business to new entrants. That is not rocket science - most recently demonstrated in requiring BAA to sell Gatwick and other airports to others to break its virtual monopoly on the airport network and create competition among airports for the ultimate benefit of airlines and consumers. Imposing price controls, particularly in a business in which nobody can control the underlying price of the commodity, is bananas and the ultimate losers will be consumers. I thought we had learned all these lessons with the bonkers prices and incomes policies and post-war crud of a "Mixed Economy" created by both main political parties over beer and sandwiches with the Unions. Seemingly not.
Comments
And next year will be Urenco, the uranium enrichment company owned by the UK, Germany & Holland. Valued at up to £12bn and being eyed by private equity, mining & nuclear companies.
Feel "safe in their hands?"
The privatisation of all our services will not lead to a good deal for the majority of the population.
That does not mean there does not be government regulation
You would have to pay management the going rate for the sector, but they would have a duty to the public/Treasury rather than shareholders. I certainly wouldn't advocate re-nationalisation without expertise to manage and deliver.
The NHS is proof that the government actually isn't that bad at running things, you can complain about it, but it doesn't stop it being one of the best healthcares in the world.
Millibands price freeze beggars belief at his economic naivety and in fact he has already started to back away from that being a cast iron guarantee.
Then there was the GPO, responsible not just for the postal service but all telecommunications........6 month wait to get a phone installed........LOL.
There is in fact no evidence of this - certainly c.10% price rises and the fact that the suppliers make profits per se do not provide evidence as such. It is actually in the consumers' interest, aswell as that of the shareholders, for the energy suppliers to make profits sufficient to encourage investment in future energy supply.
But even if the price rises did demonstrate the existence of an anti-competitive oligopoly, the answer is to break up the oligopoly and require some of the largest suppliers to sell parts of their business to new entrants. That is not rocket science - most recently demonstrated in requiring BAA to sell Gatwick and other airports to others to break its virtual monopoly on the airport network and create competition among airports for the ultimate benefit of airlines and consumers.
Imposing price controls, particularly in a business in which nobody can control the underlying price of the commodity, is bananas and the ultimate losers will be consumers.
I thought we had learned all these lessons with the bonkers prices and incomes policies and post-war crud of a "Mixed Economy" created by both main political parties over beer and sandwiches with the Unions.
Seemingly not.