Sse

[SO16_Saint]

So i see that SSE has made £410.0M profit from 'retail' gas and electricity supply.

 

Does anyone else think that the supply of gas and electricity - which is a must have, not nice to have - should be supplied by not-for-profit organisations?

[pap]

Similar sentiments were expressed on the Daily Politics on Monday.

 

Utility provision should be nationalised. Any "profit" should be re-invested to develop new techs and/or bring the cost of energy down.

[RedFear]

Similar sentiments were expressed on the Daily Politics on Monday.

 

Utility provision should be nationalised. Any "profit" should be re-invested to develop new techs and/or bring the cost of energy down.

 

exactly. when you look at something like water, which is fundamental for life, that should be provided by the government. Not from companies looking to make a profit from it

[Smirking_Saint]

They tried doing it publically, it didnt work which is why we ended up going private in an attempt to make the industry more customer friendly and in an attempt to introduce competition.

 

The industry has become streamlined, the networks are becoming better run and in general people are getting a better service. Now I do agree that perhaps energy should be provided at as little cost as possible it will possibly remove competition and prices will remain mostly the same.

 

You really should be asking questions of the government as to why we produce not enough energy but consume so much

[trousers]

exactly. when you look at something like water, which is fundamental for life, that should be provided by the government. Not from companies looking to make a profit from it

 

Even if "the government" are far less efficient at running said services?

 

Would you feel more or less motivated to run up a steep hill if someone offered you £100 to do it, as long as you did in in half the time you said you were going to do it? (dodgy Trousers analogy no.174)

Edited 22 May, 2013 by trousers

[pap]

Even if "the government" are far less efficient at running said services?

 

Would you feel more or less motivated to run up a steep hill if someone offered you £100 to do it, as long as you did in in half the time you said you were going to do it? (dodgy Trousers analogy no.174)

 

That's not really an excuse. Other governments manage it, and actually make a lot of money out of us into the bargain. I keep repeating the stat but state-owned EDF pulled £1.6Bn in profit from UK customers last year.

[Manuel]

The trouble is, if it was nationalised and not for profit, it would still probably end up costing us more.

 

Are you willing to pay more for a product, and I suspect it applies to most things you can think of as being potentially nationalised, if it meant for example a) it was set up in the nation's interest, b) good working rights for employees, c) not ripping someone off in another country, d) more accountable to the consumer, e) more control at a national level.

 

Possibly. It's debatable but I suspect most will simply want the cheapest product, no matter how or where it comes from.

[RedFear]

Even if "the government" are far less efficient at running said services?

 

Would you feel more or less motivated to run up a steep hill if someone offered you £100 to do it, as long as you did in in half the time you said you were going to do it? (dodgy Trousers analogy no.174)

 

i dont really get your analogy to be hontest. if more efficient means less labour (thats usually what these companies mean by 'more efficient') i dont actually see it as bad thing for a nationalised company to have 'extra' employees. id rather have people employed and making a contribution with those wages, then money going out to shareholders form 'somewhere'.

 

as imsure you have, ive heard all the arguments for and against nationalisation, so i wont go over them all again. its just my opinion, thats a better way to organise utilities and ensure they are affordable for all.

 

if better

[RedFear]

i dont really get your analogy to be hontest. if more efficient means less labour (thats usually what these companies mean by 'more efficient') i dont actually see it as bad thing for a nationalised company to have 'extra' employees. id rather have people employed and making a contribution with those wages, then money going out to shareholders form 'somewhere'.

 

as imsure you have, ive heard all the arguments for and against nationalisation, so i wont go over them all again. its just my opinion, thats a better way to organise utilities and ensure they are affordable for all.

 

if better

 

this will be a good use of my last post. ignore that "if better" (i know it may look sarcastic) it should have been deleted from something else i was going to write but i appear to have no edit function

[trousers]

That's not really an excuse. Other governments manage it, and actually make a lot of money out of us into the bargain. I keep repeating the stat but state-owned EDF pulled £1.6Bn in profit from UK customers last year.

 

Ok. I'll go along with this wacky re-nationalisation idea if you promise it won't be as bad as it was in the 1970s.

[pap]

The trouble is, if it was nationalised and not for profit, it would still probably end up costing us more.

 

Are you willing to pay more for a product, and I suspect it applies to most things you can think of as being potentially nationalised, if it meant for example a) it was set up in the nation's interest, b) good working rights for employees, c) not ripping someone off in another country, d) more accountable to the consumer, e) more control at a national level.

 

Possibly. It's debatable but I suspect most will simply want the cheapest product, no matter how or where it comes from.

 

Why would end up paying more? The French are raking it in.

[trousers]

i dont really get your analogy to be hontest. if more efficient means less labour (thats usually what these companies mean by 'more efficient') i dont actually see it as bad thing for a nationalised company to have 'extra' employees. id rather have people employed and making a contribution with those wages, then money going out to shareholders form 'somewhere'.

 

as imsure you have, ive heard all the arguments for and against nationalisation, so i wont go over them all again. its just my opinion, thats a better way to organise utilities and ensure they are affordable for all.

 

if better

 

My poor analogy was trying to illustrate that money (aka profit) is a good motivator for doing something quicker. Whether quicker = better is up for debate.

 

If nationalisation means throwing more people at a given task then we'll end up paying the same as we do now via increased taxes. Not that I've done any of the sums to back that sweeping statement up of course...

[SO16_Saint]

The trouble is, if it was nationalised and not for profit, it would still probably end up costing us more.

 

Are you willing to pay more for a product, and I suspect it applies to most things you can think of as being potentially nationalised, if it meant for example a) it was set up in the nation's interest, b) good working rights for employees, c) not ripping someone off in another country, d) more accountable to the consumer, e) more control at a national level.

 

Possibly. It's debatable but I suspect most will simply want the cheapest product, no matter how or where it comes from.

 

How would you end up paying MORE if it was nationalised - and not for profit?

 

The profit made by SSE was £410M last year. Surely the government, or any other company for that matter, could provide THE SAME service for current cost less £410M.

[Smirking_Saint]

How would you end up paying MORE if it was nationalised - and not for profit?

 

The profit made by SSE was £410M last year. Surely the government, or any other company for that matter, could provide THE SAME service for current cost less £410M.

 

We were not the only ones that made a mega profit, I imagine all of the big four did. The price of energy is absolutely horrendous right now. Mainly because fuel prices are skyhigh and as a country we are at max capacity when you look at usage vs generation.

 

EDF is state owned yes, the profit margins are as the company as a whole though. As a whole SSE made around 1.5bn profit and 410m of which was retail.

 

Regardless the only way to attempt to drive prices down is to create a competeyive market, if we go back to state owned supply then the industry will suffer (generation/distribution etc)

 

The fact is we have private companies working in a v heavily regulated industry within which the government ploughs millions into infrastrucure reinforcement and new generation. If the government had better plans to deal with the amount of energy we produce vs use (and deal with transmission losses effectively) then the price of our electric will drop.

 

It also doesnt help that any new generation site tends to be heavily opposed. You cant have everything.

[solentstars]

How would you end up paying MORE if it was nationalised - and not for profit?

 

The profit made by SSE was £410M last year. Surely the government, or any other company for that matter, could provide THE SAME service for current cost less £410M.

agree and that profit would be invested back in to the company than lining the pockets of a few big wigs,i loved the service when they were state owned company's.electric,water,gas ,trains,bus companys should never have been privatised . bt and companys like that made sense to be privatised .

[thefunkygibbons]

No

 

If you think they make super profits, buy shares in them

[suewhistle]

As I'm ex-SSE I've a very nice share-holding, thank you, but that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with how the industry is currently structured, owned and regulated. In fact, apart from on a technical standards basis, I don't think the industry is regulated much at all from a financial standpoint. From a strategic point of view the vested self-interest of the companies rule: security of supply is not now the priority it was when the National Grid was set up. Nobody is going to build anuclear power station unless they are subsidised, and a lot of that subsidy will go to the shareholders and owners: often abroad.

 

I can't remember which REC it was that ventured into the US market (in the Pacific NW IIRC) but withdrew with a bloody nose because the financial regulation over there was so much stricter than here in the UK.