Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

[Thomo123]

It's not generation and distribution it's generation and retail. Distribution is pipes and pylons which we aren't allowed to own (or at least weren't, might have changed recently).

Point taken. Generation and retail and the same imo. :)

[Rico1304]

Point taken. Generation and retail and the same imo. :)

We'll not really, because you can generate and only sell wholesale, and retail but not generate. Although you are right that most have both arms as it reduces the risk by ensuring a degree of security of supply.

[Thomo123]

We'll not really, because you can generate and only sell wholesale, and retail but not generate. Although you are right that most have both arms as it reduces the risk by ensuring a degree of security of supply.

Semantics surely.  The cunts are still ripping us off and I work in generation.

[Rico1304]

Semantics surely.  The cunts are still ripping us off and I work in generation.

So you're the profiteering fucker yet I'm the one getting all the shit!

[Thomo123]

So you're the profiteering fucker yet I'm the one getting all the shit!

 

I work on the technical side, and not for a company that sells the energy. It doesn't really matter though does it, our debates are purely ideological and nothing to do with were we work. We are just small cogs in a big machine....in every sense.

[Rico1304]

I work on the technical side, and not for a company that sells the energy. It doesn't really matter though does it, our debates are purely ideological and nothing to do with were we work. We are just small cogs in a big machine....in every sense.

I was joking.

[Thomo123]

I was joking.

I know.....it was tongue in cheek but you know what I mean. 

[Pureblood]

You can't have it both ways.

 

Sure you can.  Nationalise it and stop ripping off pensioners.

[Spy Bee]

If I worked for an energy company, I wouldn't feel compelled to justify their hideous ways. I'd just acknowledge it and point out that I have bills to pay!

 

The percentage of their turnover as profit isn't relevant. The huge fucking sums that they are making is relevant. People in a developed country should not be choosing between heating and eating. The disparity in wealth in this country is terrible.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Anna soubry is one dim witted brain dead fuckwit. Fucking Tories.

 

Not for her attack on farage by the way who is another turd.

[Rico1304]

Sure you can.  Nationalise it and stop ripping off pensioners.

Nationalise it? That'd go down well, it'd cost billions and the very first thing they'd have to do would be make about 10,000 people redundant.

[Lee909]

Fuck would it cost billions.

Just give them the same 'fair' price as the sold it, Royal Mail and every other nationally owned company off for.

 

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Nationalise it? That'd go down well, it'd cost billions and the very first thing they'd have to do would be make about 10,000 people redundant.

 

Come on rico, there you go again with "It would cost billions"

 

No it wouldn't. The infasructure is already there. You wouldn't have to lay off 10,000 people either.

[Spy Bee]

The only problem with nationalising things is that you lose efficiency. I think there's got to be a third way. I don't know what exactly that looks like, whether it's some kind of joint venture with private interests owning a minority, maybe it's the building society model owning a minority, but something that allows it to be run efficiently but doesn't let people's grandparents die of cold because they can't afford to put the fire on for half an hour!

[Rico1304]

Come on rico, there you go again with "It would cost billions"

 

No it wouldn't. The infasructure is already there. You wouldn't have to lay off 10,000 people either.

I'm no expert here and I'm prepared to be proved wrong but in order to Nationalise they'd have to buy the companies, they don't just walk in and take the keys. There's several billion right away and still with no saving for the consumers.

 

They'd then have 6 big and a load of small companies with different IT systems, HR departments, etc etc which would have to be rationalised otherwise it's very inefficient. Then anyone working in marketing, sales and any department that deals with switching would be surplus to requirements. In out business alone I'd say that's about 3000.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

I'm no expert here and I'm prepared to be proved wrong but in order to Nationalise they'd have to buy the companies, they don't just walk in and take the keys. There's several billion right away and still with no saving for the consumers.

 

They'd then have 6 big and a load of small companies with different IT systems, HR departments, etc etc which would have to be rationalised otherwise it's very inefficient. Then anyone working in marketing, sales and any department that deals with switching would be surplus to requirements. In out business alone I'd say that's about 3000.

 

Any existing staff could be moved over in TUPE.

 

Why would marketing need to be scrapped? Even if it is nationalised they would still need to run a marketing campaign to announce the changes and what are the benefits of coming over.

 

So those departments that you say would be surplus to requirements, could they not be moved into other areas of the business as the increase in customers would not be able to be handled by the current levels, which isn't enough as it is now anyway. Therefore providing the better level of service that you said you remembered when it was nationalised last time? And used as a reason to argue against Nationalisation.

 

Nobody would need to be made redundant. And all profit would go back in to this country and not into to a load of fat cats pockets who are sat round a table who are only arsed about the increase in profit from the year before.

 

I would rather the governement spent money on providing services that it's people need than spending billions of money on gving it to Fench companies to build our new HS2 railway lines and trains or on wars in other countries.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

The only problem with nationalising things is that you lose efficiency. I think there's got to be a third way. I don't know what exactly that looks like, whether it's some kind of joint venture with private interests owning a minority, maybe it's the building society model owning a minority, but something that allows it to be run efficiently but doesn't let people's grandparents die of cold because they can't afford to put the fire on for half an hour!

Why or how would you lose efficiency?

[Rico1304]

Hold on, are you talking about Nationalising BG or the Industry? My example above assumes you meant the entire industry. You are right that there'd be no need for redundancies if it was just BG. But where is the cash for the purchase of BG coming from?

[Rico1304]

Oh, and I've never said anything was better in the old days, quite the opposite.

[Stu Monty]

The only problem with nationalising things is that you lose efficiency. I think there's got to be a third way. I don't know what exactly that looks like, whether it's some kind of joint venture with private interests owning a minority, maybe it's the building society model owning a minority, but something that allows it to be run efficiently but doesn't let people's grandparents die of cold because they can't afford to put the fire on for half an hour!

 

Simply not true. The best train provider is currently publicly run for a start.

 

Also, those billions that are being paid out to shareholders - that goes into the quality of the service and bringing the price down. That's efficiency. In economics terms when people say "efficient" most of the time all they mean is cheap. Cheap and shitty and cut down as bare as it can go to allow the maximum profit, bonuses and dividends to be wrung out of it.

 

We're paying £10 for a £5 cake at the moment, whilst the rest of the cash is put in a Monaco account. Not efficient. Cheap.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Hold on, are you talking about Nationalising BG or the Industry? My example above assumes you meant the entire industry. You are right that there'd be no need for redundancies if it was just BG. But where is the cash for the purchase of BG coming from?

 

I was using BG as an example, it could apply to any of the Big 6 though.

 

Wel  money from the Royal Mail sale for example could be used or by getting the likes of Vodafone and Amazon to pay their tax bills.

 

Oh, and I've never said anything was better in the old days, quite the opposite.

 

Sorry meant to say that you said you remembered it being shit.

[Rico1304]

So, you spend £18bn to buy Centrica, probably 3 times that to buy the rest and save the public £100 a year. Losing 100's of millions in tax each year.

 

Or

 

You spend £18bn to buy Centrica,, cut prices and hope everyone switches.

[Strontium]

Simply not true. The best train provider is currently publicly run for a start.

 

But that's not nationalisation of a whole industry, that provider is still competing in a market with other, privately-run providers.

 

I wonder if something like nationalising or mutualising one of the Big 6 would work.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

So, you spend £18bn to buy Centrica, probably 3 times that to buy the rest and save the public £100 a year. Losing 100's of millions in tax each year.

 

Or

 

You spend £18bn to buy Centrica,, cut prices and hope everyone switches.

 

Bloody hell rico. Talk about missing the point.

 

I think you should read posts properly before responding to them.

 

Here is what I said.

 

 

And all profit would go back in to this country and not into to a load of fat cats pockets who are sat round a table who are only arsed about the increase in profit from the year before.

 

 

So all profit that was made would go into the running of the service, back into the country to provide a better way of life for all who lived on it's shores and not just a select ffew.

 

[Rico1304]

Hold on you said you'd Nationalise to stop people getting 'ripped off' now you are saying you want to do it so the profits go back into the country, so nothing changes for the customer? So it's a takeover rather than looking after the people?