Re: Gas Gas Gas : Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:07 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

...of course in the days when power stations were coal fired and UK PLC owned all of the coal mines, and owned all of the rail network to transport the coal, and owned all of the power stations to generate the electricity, and owned all of the grid to distribute the electricity, and owned all of the gas fields or coal gas producers, and owned all of the network of gas distrubution...

...then any such costs were just overheads and profit was not a primary motivator in distributing energy.

Yes, but all that still had to be paid for, so it doesn't really answer the question of whether the underlying per unit cost was relatively cheaper or relatively more expensive, whether it was genuinely more cost efficient. Whether we pay for energy through a retail bill or through taxation, or via some combination, we still have to pay, and the costs can be fiddled in all sorts of way to make x or y or z superficially cheaper, so what matters is the underlying unit cost after the smoke and mirrors are removed.

Re: Gas Gas Gas : Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:43 pm  

Kelvin's Ferret wrote:

Yes, but all that still had to be paid for, so it doesn't really answer the question of whether the underlying per unit cost was relatively cheaper or relatively more expensive, whether it was genuinely more cost efficient. Whether we pay for energy through a retail bill or through taxation, or via some combination, we still have to pay, and the costs can be fiddled in all sorts of way to make x or y or z superficially cheaper, so what matters is the underlying unit cost after the smoke and mirrors are removed.

The argument for privatising the industries that were previously nationalised is that nationalised industries were inefficient - that is the primary reason for privatising all of the ones that I mentioned.

The reasoning always went the way of over-staffed, over-managed, businesses with poor working relationships leading to strikes and huge loss of production hours, basically no-one in the nationalised sector seemed to know how to run a business or were so ingrained in the attitude that it didn't really matter that it led to a business that carried a huge overhead.

The argument for privatising was always based on "we will be much more efficient, and therefore cheaper" and several decades later we are slowly realising that while those businesses may be leaner and more efficient and may have had new capital equipment investments made, the savings in those efficiencies have not been passed on to the consumer.

Its easy to criticise the old British Rail for being inefficient, dirty and unreliable and then point to (say) Virgin Rail or Cross Country and their new fleets of clean (ish) rolling stock and their reliable (ish) services and ask if you really want to go back to British rail - but does anyone recall paying the equivalent of £100 for a return Leeds/Birmingham ticket tomorrow, or £222 for Leeds/Kings Cross (both standard fares, just checked) ?

Does anyone really think that privatisation of industries leads to a lowering of costs through efficiency savings or is the reality that efficiency savings within those industries are required in order to factor in the larger profits that the private investors will require, profits that were not the primary concern of the nationalised industries ?

(Although East Coast haven't made a bad fist of it)

Re: Gas Gas Gas : Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:05 pm  

East Coast have done very well – money coming back to the taxpayer, and high ratings in terms of customer satisfaction.

Makes you wonder why the determination to reprivatise.

Oh.

Ideology.

Re: Gas Gas Gas : Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:25 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

...or <on East Coast> £222 for Leeds/Kings Cross (both standard fares, just checked) ?...

Virgin : Manchester-London : Anytime return : £308 (and fewer off-peak savings options).

[DaveO]

Re: Gas Gas Gas : Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:42 pm  

Kelvin's Ferret wrote:

Yes, but all that still had to be paid for, so it doesn't really answer the question of whether the underlying per unit cost was relatively cheaper or relatively more expensive, whether it was genuinely more cost efficient.

Whether it was cheaper or was more cost efficient is a completely irrelevant question today simply because so many things have changed between then and now.

Back then privatisation was certainly sold as something that would deliver things cheaper and more efficiently.

After a few decades and given how things are now the question that needs to be asked is this really the case now?

The East coat main line suggests the way it was sold as an absolute given that privatised industries would be the most cost effective and efficient is complete rubbish.

Whether we pay for energy through a retail bill or through taxation, or via some combination, we still have to pay, and the costs can be fiddled in all sorts of way to make x or y or z superficially cheaper, so what matters is the underlying unit cost after the smoke and mirrors are removed.

Of course we still have to pay but one of the main arguments against privatisation back then was that for it to be cheaper it would have to be so while still delivering a profit for shareholders and that remains as valid a question as ever particularly in the energy sector. In this sector where we see an apparent disconnect between wholesale price rises and retail price rises and profit margins on the generation side which are, as said, between 17% and 23% there is certainly a need to remove the smoke and mirrors just so we understand exactly what the privatised industries costs are and just what its profit margins are.

[DaveO]

Re: Gas Gas Gas : Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:34 pm  

And just to add insult to injury: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exclusive-the-other-energy-scandal--power-giants-use-loophole-to-cut-their-own-tax-bills-8906447.html "HMRC knows the exemption is being misused and considered restricting it last year, but backed down after lobbying from the financial industry."

And just to add insult to injury: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exclusive-the-other-energy-scandal--power-giants-use-loophole-to-cut-their-own-tax-bills-8906447.html "HMRC knows the exemption is being misused and considered restricting it last year, but backed down after lobbying from the financial industry."

Re: Gas Gas Gas : Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:32 am  

No wonder MP's aren't concerned about rising bills: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ho ... gy-2671053 Altogether now; 'We're all in this together'

No wonder MP's aren't concerned about rising bills: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ho ... gy-2671053 Altogether now; 'We're all in this together'

Re: Gas Gas Gas : Mon Nov 04, 2013 9:06 am  

DaveO wrote:

...
"HMRC knows the exemption is being misused and considered restricting it last year, but backed down after lobbying from the financial industry."

Well, that tells you who runs the country doesn't it?

[DaveO]

Re: Gas Gas Gas : Tue Nov 12, 2013 1:47 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Well, that tells you who runs the country doesn't it?

Well EDF are making a play to dictate government policy.

They put their prices up today by 3.9%. Less than the other companies to do so, so far.

This smaller increase is in anticipation of the government removing the green levy.

If the government doesn't do this EDF have said they will increase prices again in consequence.

So there you have it. "Remove the green levy or else...."

And as I suggested earlier despite removing it, prices still go up by 3.9%! Well actually that is worse than I suggested as I kind of expected dropping the 9% green levy would mean prizes frozen for about a year but no, we still get an increase despite (the anticipation of) 9% being wiped from the companies costs.

Cameron must be livid. He will have wanted to see at least a freeze in energy prices up the election in 2015 but all he is going to achieve by removing the green levy is the destruction of the green energy industry it funds (not that I think he is bothered about that), bills that increase anyway and the companies profits intact.

Fantastic Mr Cameron. An absolute winner of a solution to to rising energy bills!

Re: Gas Gas Gas : Tue Nov 12, 2013 1:55 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Cameron must be livid. He will have wanted to see at least a freeze in energy prices up the election in 2015 but all he is going to achieve by removing the green levy is the destruction of the green energy industry it funds (not that I think he is bothered about that), bills that increase anyway and the companies profits intact.

Fantastic Mr Cameron. An absolute winner of a solution to to rising energy bills!

I don't think livid will even begin to describe what he must be thinking right now, he's basically had a shotgun placed to his temple with a finger gently squeezing both triggers and somehow he has to think of something to say that won't make him look like the Energy Companies who are holding the gun are not dictating government policy to him.

And he knows that we know that he is powerless to do anything at all other than comply - yet this afternoon he'll have a team of advisers and speech writers trying to come up with something that sounds like he is still in charge.