Do you agree with nationalisation? Railways, energy and utility companies.

I am uncertain. Could someone please tell me why it is good to privatise something where there is no competition or profit incentive? Other than ideological Ayn Rand BS.

For anybody looking at the profits that these companies make, their dividend pavements are freely available on line. They're normally only about 4%. Hardly excessive.

The Big Six currently suffocate the market. They produce 70pc of the energy, can sell it to themselves in bilateral trades and then sell it on to the consumer. At present, a lot of energy is traded via such secret backroom deals, with the equivalent of just 6pc of electricity consumption volume traded on an open market.



This has lead to a widespread concerns about cost inflation. The generation arm of a big utility can sell its energy to the retail side of the business, at a cost they determine without reference to the wider market. This can artificially decrease the profit margin on the retail side, while boosting it in generation, passing profit back along the supply chain. When energy suppliers claim to be making a "modest profit margin of 5pc", they refer to retail profits – generation profits are much higher, and in some instances exceed 20pc. The large suppliers are able to extract huge profits from their consumers, but the current system enables that fact to be disguised.

Just two weeks the 2.8% rise in rail fares came into effect. Could public ownership protect British people from profit-driven interests of these private companies?

I can't think of any industry that didn't suffer under nationalisation. British Shipbuilers, British Rail, British Areospace, British Coal etc; they all suffered from chronic mismanagement and lack of investment by a variety of governments. The majority of these industries are now much more reliable, much more productive and much more technologically 'cutting edge' than they ever were under nationalisation. I can't see how re-nationalisng them would improve anything.

For anybody looking at the profits that these companies make, their dividend pavements are freely available on line. They're normally only about 4%. Hardly excessive.

And yet supermarkets usually only work off of 1% or 2% worth of profit.

But the generating arms’ profit margins are much higher anyway – at between 8 and 32 per cent last year, depending on the company– while they also receive big government subsidies to encourage low-carbon generation.
Quote from the Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-how-big-six-energy-firms-conceal-their-profits-8930039.html
They conceal their profit but I deem that to be a good level.

I think monopolised industry should have a government competitor, which is run by the workers and the consumers. I wouldn't consider it government intervention when it is run by the people, profit would be used to secure a decent wage for the wrokers and to invest based on what the public deems necessary.

I like the sound of a co-operative style industry being setup, with workers collectively (and democratically) making up the directors board. I think that's what real public ownership is about.

From that bastion of the left, the Telegraph:



Doubtless the trains are cooking the books in just the same way. Large dividends on the books would provoke uproar, so they keep them low, but the shareholders are no less wealthy in toto.

Why is it better to sell off infrastructure and hand over wodges of taxpayer's money year on year to keep them going? Better, surely, to have the taxpayers' money pay for it directly and they get to keep the asset*.

The public are nothing more or less than the shareholders of the government, after all.

*I'll tell you why this doesn't happen: politicians undersell the asset to get a lump sum now, so they can redistribute it (our own money! The gall to actually sell us back shares in, say, the Royal Mail is just a fat cock in your mouth as well as up your arse) the year before the election and get re-elected, and leave the bills to the taxpayer of the future, when they'll be long out of office. It is the financial mindset of the destitute Wonga customer.

No, that'd make them worker owned, not public owned.

To be public owened the public would collectively and democratically make up the directors board...

No, that'd make them worker owned, not public owned.

To be public owened the public would collectively and democratically make up the directors board...

Agreed, but maybe consumers could be incorporated into the mix? Ed Miliband is also talking about giving more powers to consumer pressure groups like Citizens Advice Bureau and Which? - maybe ordinary consumers could be given a role in decision making as well. Look at the co-op retail chain, all of their customers accumulate points as they use co-op services, I'm sure the government to implement a similar system.

Some Tories might argue that this model is inefficient, or not profitable enough. However, all evidence points to the contrary. Most co-ops, because of their sustainable ideals and fair employee/consumer relationships are far more successful that short-lived private sector start-ups. Just take a look at John Lewis, Waitrose and all of the co-op stores - collectively owned, yet still make some of Britain's leading brands.

Miliband has been wise to raise attention to an issue that's been effecting ordinary people for decades - the extortionate bills being charged by transport and energy companies. Bills have been rising consistently year and year, and there's keen evidence to suggest that this is not entirely because of increasing cost of raw fuel, but instead a consequence of cold-hearted profiteering on the behalf of a few business fatcats.

Just two weeks the 2.8% rise in rail fares came into effect. A fair increase or another attempt to make life harder for ordinary people to get to work and back. Could public ownership protect British people from profit-driven interests of these private companies?

Do you think that Britain should nationalise its railway and energy companies?

Privatision is really something desired by those who have strong beliefs in free market, laissez faire economies - these people might be called neoliberals or neoConservatives. In their mind, private business is far more efficient than the public sector, therefore all utilities should be nationalised for greater efficiency and output. This was quite clearly the mindset of Margaret Thatcher, a keen promoter of business ethics inside the public sector.

Unfortunately, years down the line, the Thatcher government has left us with a private utilities sector that is failing the public in almost all regards. To nationalise an industry, you must upset quite a few business leaders and thinkers - often the same people who're donating to the Tory Party and even Liberal Democrats. Being seen as anti-business is not a desired image in the modern political world.

While I think we should adopt a more anti-business, pro-common ownership approach, the current culture in parliament is very much in favour of timid reforms and insignificant regulations. Nationalisation is really the thing ordinary British people have been calling for.