Red Ed

[Adi2Dassler]

We need to get our heads out of the sand and build some new nuclear power stations!

No question Nuclear power stations are the most efficient way (just now) of producing electricity, but I'm concerned about long term solutions and the cost of cleaning up and replacing them...the of N/E England being an example.The radiation cleanup, storage of rods etc makes me uneasy.

That doesn't offer an altenative solution for today, but we have to be long term in our thinking.

And Milliband is an erse

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

No question Nuclear power stations are the most efficient way (just now) of producing electricity, but I'm concerned about long term solutions and the cost of cleaning up and replacing them...the of N/E England being an example.The radiation cleanup, storage of rods etc makes me uneasy.

That doesn't offer an altenative solution for today, but we have to be long term in our thinking.

And Milliband is an erse

I agree nuclear power has to be the current way ahead - there is a lot of scaremongering whatiffery and whatabootery about nuclear but we need to get real about risk - well actually in my opinion we (the public) in general don't understand risk and probability. There is probably more risk that in the next 100yrs the South of England will get swamped by a tsunami created by a collapsing volcano in the Canary Islands (cut out the cheering ) than there being a nuclear power disaster in that part of the world.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

I agree nuclear power has to be the current way ahead - there is a lot of scaremongering whatiffery and whatabootery about nuclear but we need to get real about risk - well actually in my opinion we (the public) in general don't understand risk and probability. There is probably more risk that in the next 100yrs the South of England will get swamped by a tsunami created by a collapsing volcano in the Canary Islands (cut out the cheering ) than there being a nuclear power disaster in that part of the world.

Watched a doc about this some time ago.From recollection, it's a cliff on the island of Hierro that faces west...if it collapses in the manner they suggested, it's the east coast of America that's royally goosed...the distance and momentum of the wave combined would mean the entire side of America would be wiped out.

Anyway, I'd be pumping in massive funding to tidal/wave instead of nuclear...it might not be economical yet, but short term pain for long term gain n'all that.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Watched a doc about this some time ago.From recollection, it's a cliff on the island of Hierro that faces west...if it collapses in the manner they suggested, it's the east coast of America that's royally goosed...the distance and momentum of the wave combined would mean the entire side of America would be wiped out.

Anyway, I'd be pumping in massive funding to tidal/wave instead of nuclear...it might not be economical yet, but short term pain for long term gain n'all that.

Wqas priogramme on it earlier this week - major natural disasters in the waiting - this being one. Tokyo, California flattened by earthquakes etc - and we f***y about and fret over building power stations or NIMBY or conservation/breeding place for nice ducks concerns over wave/tidal power.

Anyway - doesn't change for me the power companies being a bunch of chancers and I hope we call their bluff.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Well we nationalised the banks [last remaining principle of Karl Marx] so we might as well nationalise the power companies.

Perhaps Ed needs a bit of help with his strategy for winning votes.
I shall start with....Abolish copper coins

 

[SocketRocket]

The 'Severn Barrage' seemed a good way to produce vast amounts of cheap electricity. The initial costs would be high but there would be no decommissioning problems. I think one of the objections was that many of the mud flats used by migrating birds would vanish.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The 'Severn Barrage' seemed a good way to produce vast amounts of cheap electricity. The initial costs would be high but there would be no decommissioning problems. I think one of the objections was that many of the mud flats used by migrating birds would vanish.

This is the problem. It's all very well having a good conservationist head when we have a choice - but with power? The choices are limited. Without additional power generation capacity, and if the anti-nuclear lobby have their way or power companies refuse to build any nuclear power stations, and the anti-fracking NIMBYism blocks on that front, and the anti Wind Farm 'blight on landscape' lobby continues to try and block - well we are rather struggling are we not. Looked at across the piece it's all rather absurd. Whatever is decided upon requires imo a proper RISK analysis and impact assessment - need I say proper again. And I am afraid thaty as far as risk is concerned NIMBYism is bottom of the pile for me follwed by 'blight' on landscape (debatable blight in the case of wind farms).

 

[Sweep]

I'm not commenting on the rights or wrongs of the policy - just noting that the reaction of the power companies amounts to blackmailing the country. Along the lines of 'if you vote for that lot and they do what they say they'll do, then expect power cuts and we're not building more power stations'. That's blackmail. The power companies should have an absolute legal responsibility to build power stations to maintain and increase capacity as necessary and an ABSOLUTE responsibility to ensure there are no power cuts.

They are the power companies for THIS country - I don't care whether they make money or not - they are providing a public service and they should be FORCED to maintain that service come what may. They took on the business risk when they bought into power provision - and have made money out of it - now they can start making a loss - that's business.

I really don't think you understand the meaning of the word business. And in the meantime, who is going to pay the wages of the people who work for a business that makes no money? Where is the money going to come from to pay them? Do you care if they make money now? If you can't make a profit, you don't supply. That's business. If they can't make money they can't invest. Making that clear is not blackmail. And what? We are FORCING companies to maintain a service at a loss now? How does that work? Are we going to turn them into slaves? Supplying stuff at a loss only works with nationalisation. And guess who picks up the losses then?

 

[Sweep]

Yes - but these are no ordinary businesses providing a service or product to the market. These aren't businesses that provide to a market that can realistically choose to buy or not. These are businesses that provides a public service - businesses that have a captive market - a market that did not previously exist and that was created by the ideology of a political party.

The power companies bought into 'selling' to a captive market. A market that cannot turn it's back on the suppliers and walk away as they could in any normal market if they didn't like the product or the cost of it.

And yet the power companies talk as if they are living in a market economy. They only exist becuase of a political ideology - they bought into that - so they cannot abandon the market because of a change in the political climate that created their business. When they entered the UK power supply business they knew that their business lived in a political market and not a normal market - and they chose to accept that risk. But now the politcal environment changes - as they knew it could - tough - they rtook the risk.

They cannot just walk away from the market - and they cannot be allowed to blackmail this country - because by their threats that is precisely what they are doing. If in years to come there are power cuts due to supply issues then the bosses of the power companies should be charged with putting the safety and wellbeing of the country at risk - and that is called treason.

It is not a captive market as there is competition. It is the fact that the competitiveness of the market is failing that is causing the problem. They all put their prices up together. Like a cartel without contact. The government has a watchdog to manage this and this is not doing its job. That is the way to handle this. If the watchdog grew some teeth we and the power companies would be operating in a market economy. As private businesses, they are perfectly entitled to walk away. They are legally obliged to operate in the best interests of their shareholders. They are not blackmailing anyone. As for trying the power company bosses for treason??? Surely you are not serious? You can still hang people for treason. Great idea. Let's hang the boss of British Gas!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It is not a captive market as there is competition. It is the fact that the competitiveness of the market is failing that is causing the problem. They all put their prices up together. Like a cartel without contact. The government has a watchdog to manage this and this is not doing its job. That is the way to handle this. If the watchdog grew some teeth we and the power companies would be operating in a market economy. As private businesses, they are perfectly entitled to walk away. They are legally obliged to operate in the best interests of their shareholders. They are not blackmailing anyone. As for trying the power company bosses for treason??? Surely you are not serious? You can still hang people for treason. Great idea. Let's hang the boss of British Gas!

No I'm not really serious - you are quite right.

But I don't care that they are private businesses or not - what they supply is not any old consumer choice product or service - and so they cannot be treated liek any other business allowed to walk away from the country and let the lights go out according to the commercial 'whim' and imperitives of a business.

It is completely unacceptable that we can have the boss of Centrica effectively threatening the country with power cuts if we vote in Labour in and Labour then stick to a manifesto pledge on capping power charges. I am not debating the policy or power of watchdogs etc - I am questioning whether or not private businesses should ever be in a position to pull or threaten to pull the plug for purely commercial reasons without parliament and the public having recourse to legal redress. One definition of treason includes

'... to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavour'

...which is what Scargill was being 'accused' off by Thatcher with the miners strike. So it's OK for business when it wasn't for the Unions to blackmail the country.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Centrica guy is totally peeved as he has just lost his trillion$$$$$ bonus in one swoop so he blackmails the UK.
Free Market at it's finest......he is as much a gangster as Scargill.

 

[Sweep]

No I'm not really serious - you are quite right.

But I don't care that they are private businesses or not - what they supply is not any old consumer choice product or service - and so they cannot be treated liek any other business allowed to walk away from the country and let the lights go out according to the commercial 'whim' and imperitives of a business.

It is completely unacceptable that we can have the boss of Centrica effectively threatening the country with power cuts if we vote in Labour in and Labour then stick to a manifesto pledge on capping power charges. I am not debating the policy or power of watchdogs etc - I am questioning whether or not private businesses should ever be in a position to pull or threaten to pull the plug for purely commercial reasons without parliament and the public having recourse to legal redress. One definition of treason includes

'... to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavour'

...which is what Scargill was being 'accused' off by Thatcher with the miners strike. So it's OK for business when it wasn't for the Unions to blackmail the country.

But you could argue that Red Ed is blackmailing the power companies and it does show how he is still living in the days of Scargill. Fortunately, you cannot force people to work for nothing nor force companies to supply at a loss. The power companies are not saying if you vote Labour we will cut your power. They are saying this policy could lead to power cuts because we may have to supply at a loss. Big difference. You cannot seperate the two issues here, as one is creating the other. You cannot criticise the power companies without looking at the policy they are reacting to. Both your posts on this and mine clearly demonstrate how this policy is unworkable. It is the politics of desperation. We will make you richer without worrying where the money comes from. It is why we got into this mess in the first place. Even the Lib Dems are at it now and it works. The electorate falls for it every time, just look at the opinion polls.

 

[Mungoscorner]

My gas and electricity suppliers have been screwing me for years.
When was the last time energy prices dropped in line with wholesale price's ?
Why do they ask me to pay more than i need to each month, and try to justify by saying " you'll use more in the coming months, and it'll stop you being in arrears " i've never been in arrears, i'm always in credit, and it is virtually impossible to get this money back from them !
Thatcher and her goons, selling us the idea that nationalising the utilities would create competition, which would in turn lower price's and improve the service !!!!
Almost as laughable as the water companies.
We suffer price increase's year on year, and they try to justify there huge profits by suggesting they will reinvest these profits to improve the standard of service. Oh yeah, thats why i rang them about about a hydrant that had been spewing water for nearly 6 weeks, and here we are another 4 weeks down the line and its still leaking !!!!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

But you could argue that Red Ed is blackmailing the power companies and it does show how he is still living in the days of Scargill. Fortunately, you cannot force people to work for nothing nor force companies to supply at a loss. The power companies are not saying if you vote Labour we will cut your power. They are saying this policy could lead to power cuts because we may have to supply at a loss. Big difference. You cannot seperate the two issues here, as one is creating the other. You cannot criticise the power companies without looking at the policy they are reacting to. Both your posts on this and mine clearly demonstrate how this policy is unworkable. It is the politics of desperation. We will make you richer without worrying where the money comes from. It is why we got into this mess in the first place. Even the Lib Dems are at it now and it works. The electorate falls for it every time, just look at the opinion polls.

OK - so what you are saying that it is reasonable for likes of Centrica to pull the plug on their power supply to us if doing so means that they don't incur losses. Really? That's OK? Like Centrica complaining that we've stopped playing the game their way so they are taking their ball home.

Whatever they or the markets or anyone says - the power companies are essentially public services. They signed up to a deal that gave them 'competitive' access to a captive market - a market that cannot walk away from what they are offering but a market that they, the suppliers, can essentially walk away from. And we are told they may do this if - for a year and a half or so - they have to supply power to us at a loss. So they make a loss - in real business companies can make losses some years and profits others. Oh wouldn't it be great if you ran a business that was always guaranteed profitable - and even although the margins might be small - the profit can be significant. Make a loss? Not the game we signed up to whinge Centrica. Well tough. Real businesses have robustness that enables them to survive temporary periods of loss making. Those that don't - fail. There will always be someone else willing to step in a fill that supply hole.

 

[SocketRocket]

My gas and electricity suppliers have been screwing me for years.
When was the last time energy prices dropped in line with wholesale price's ?
Why do they ask me to pay more than i need to each month, and try to justify by saying " you'll use more in the coming months, and it'll stop you being in arrears " i've never been in arrears, i'm always in credit, and it is virtually impossible to get this money back from them !
Thatcher and her goons, selling us the idea that nationalising the utilities would create competition, which would in turn lower price's and improve the service !!!!
Almost as laughable as the water companies.
We suffer price increase's year on year, and they try to justify there huge profits by suggesting they will reinvest these profits to improve the standard of service. Oh yeah, thats why i rang them about about a hydrant that had been spewing water for nearly 6 weeks, and here we are another 4 weeks down the line and its still leaking !!!!

So I guess it's OK for you to 'Screw' your Employer for years. If they made a loss you think it would be OK for them to cut your wages. I guess you probably want an increase in Salary every year and feel a bit hard done by if you don't, irrespective of profitability. Well, thats the case unless you work in the Public sector where profitability and value for money are alien concepts.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I got stopped by a shopping mall 'supersalesman' the other day.
'Excuse me sir but who supplies your power'

I said that my gas was with the electricty board and my electric was with the gas board. [I lied]

He just laughed and walked away.

I see the Eton Mess are going to hold down petrol tax increases [not prices] for a couple of years....hmmm I wonder where the bright sparks got that idea from.

 

[mikee247]

There's something not quite right with him... he has absolutely no presence or vaguely looks like he knows what he's doing.... he cant speak correctly nor can he hold an audience or think for himself. Can anyone honestly see this guy leading us in the future as major power and telling the yanks to wind their necks in?? I dont think so....

At least his brother had some credibility and had been mixing it quite well with heads of states etc in the past..... I cant see this chump of a brother even getting a lunch meeting with the head of bongo bongo land! Now hes made arguably the worst political decision in recent history in a vain attempt to get middle and lower class votes! Anyone with half a brain can see its a short term shocker! Its actually quite insulting to all the UK public to think we cant see through this crap.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Douglas Alexander would have been the best choice but they would never have stood for another Scot!

 

[Mungoscorner]

So I guess it's OK for you to 'Screw' your Employer for years. If they made a loss you think it would be OK for them to cut your wages. I guess you probably want an increase in Salary every year and feel a bit hard done by if you don't, irrespective of profitability. Well, thats the case unless you work in the Public sector where profitability and value for money are alien concepts.

I do work in the "public sector" and haven't had a pay increase for 9 years.
I've also had a massive change to my pension, work longer, pay more, get less.
But you probably already know all this, seeing as your an authority on EVERY subject.
:blah:

 

[SocketRocket]

I do work in the "public sector" and haven't had a pay increase for 9 years.
I've also had a massive change to my pension, work longer, pay more, get less.
But you probably already know all this, seeing as your an authority on EVERY subject.
:blah:

Ah!! That accounts for it then. Probably never had a real job and will still get a pension better than the majority of people. Thanks for the credit by the way. Your generosity knows no beginning.