It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Big 6 Energy companies competition inquiry - now were at risk of blackouts! WTF

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Phatdamage
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 

good video, haven't seen it before, don't know how much more the people will take, not only here in the UK but the world.


There's a few of those kind of calls out there. Many of the articles discussing the tapes of phone calls once hosted them. There's a full documentary out there on the Enron scandal called the "The Smartest Guys in the Room". It was required watching in my school of business. It's really sad that Enron's involvement didn't get nearly as much hubbub as it should've. It's also really sad that the media made a bigger deal out of Schwarznegger's illegitimate child than they did the meeting with Enron CEO Kenneth Lay that was about deregulating the very markets that Enron abused before he was even elected.

en.wikipedia.org...

Former CEO Kenneth Lay died before charges were laid against him, iirc. His successor, Jeffrey Skilling was charged with multiple felonies including conspiracy and sentenced to 24 years of jailtime in 2006. Sounds good until you realize that federal prosecutors just shaved off 10 years from Skilling's sentence last June. He'll be up for release in 2017. Part of that deal was due to Skilling giving up $42 million that is to be redistributed to Enron fraud victims. Just who those victims are going to be is really hard to say but the cynic in me is figuring it'll probably go to defrauded investors and not the people of California who were fleeced.

dealbook.nytimes.com...




posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   

adarma
reply to post by kathat
 

It's a joke that isn't funny , this coalition is going to do nothing . Dave Moron and his cronies didn't win the last election and yet they have cart blanch . They proved their worth and who they were supporting at the last budget , it wasn't the poor that's for sure


He is not known as 'King' David Scameron for nothing! This energy scam is an outrage, and I agree with previous posters that utilities that are a basic need should be nationalised and run purely to cover costs with some set aside for upkeep, repair & new installation and NO big-wig at the top corruption or mega salaries



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


A star for you, hit the nail on the head there.
As with all privatisations of what were publicly owned services, the owners - taxpayers - got royally screwed. Not only were these essential services sold off and run for profit as the guiding principle, but also carried on (I think some still do) receiving cumulative £Billions in public subsidy as well. So, we got royally screwed twice over!

It makes me laugh to see the likes of Cameron and others talk about energy dependence and how we need to become more independent, but how is that at all achievable when most of it is in the hands of foreign corporations anyway?
I also see he wants full scale Fracking ramped up as quickly as possible - not in his backyard of course. More energy independence being touted as usual, and revenue for the treasury. But wait.... didn't he already announce massive tax breaks for the Fracking companies? See, the lies come so thick and fast they start falling over themselves and the contradictions become ever more obvious.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 03:50 AM
link   

kathat
Critical services should be nationlised, energy, communication, transport et al. At least on the major backbones.


There is certainly a good argument for renationalisation of power, water and the railway, because all three have failed miserably for the end user - costs have gone up and service hasn't improved - telecommunications is perhaps the one example of where privatisation actually worked. Costs to the user have gone down and there has been massive investment in the networks to provide us with the super-dooper broadband etc.

Even after privatisation, BT dragged it's heels and behaved like a state monopoly (and still does) while it's competitors gobbled up it's business - renationalising comms is a bad idea.

As for the OP, it's about time we had this inquiry. What's even more galling is that some of the "big 6" are subsidfaries of European state owned power companies. So in essence, the profits they make out of fleecing us in the UK get pumped back into the economies of foreign nations and effectively subsidises cheaper power and investment in their networks at the expense of ours. EDF Energy, for example, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the French, state-owned firm EDF SA. EDF literally translates as "Energy of France".

The reason we nationalised was not really anything to do with "Thatcher", but rather as a result of EU law - she had no choice, really - but as with most things with the EU, the UK followed the rules while the French/Germans don't and we lose out.

Only lately have we started playing them at their game and rigging our tenders to favour UK companies (Bombardier for example) and actually started stealing business from them (Siemens moving to Hull)



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 





It's really kind of like being held hostage for the sake of profit.


Pretty much. If we're not being told all the wealthy bankers will leave London, if we cap their bonuses, or all the corporations will leave if we expect them to pay corporation tax.

A nation can no longer determine its own fate in a world dominated by global capitalism. Nations are at the whim of the decisions made by corporations. If you don't play along expect to be punished or threatened with a Hobson's choice.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 


The tax breaks for fracking are to promote investment - once matured, they will be taxed like the Oil fields. Incidentally, the tax for those last year was lowered to promote some more investment, then when that comes on stream, it gets milked.

It is also arguable that lower taxes means more tax receipts - simple economics really. I can explain this reasoning if it seems counter-intuitive.

As for fracking in Cameron's yard, he says he is quite happy for it to go ahead and Oxfordshire has actually highlighted several possible sites already. I get some people want to hate on the Tories/PM/Politicians in general, but lets not make stuff up, shall we? There is plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike them without making false accusations as that just makes you look a bit daft.

As with the bit about privatisations, I am generally in agreement although I think some industries have faired better than others.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


But experience tells us that once the tax breaks are there, they'll be lobbying like crazy to keep them in place and the taxpayers will be taxed more to make up the difference. A couple of bribes.... sorry, campaign donations... and a couple of appointments of the right people,in the right places, and we can kiss the mythical tax revenues goodbye.

As for the Fracking sites in Oxfordshire, we all know that what Cameron says, and what actually happens are a gulf apart. He would not allow this crap in his own backyard, spoiling the views from his country seat and lowering his property value, as well as that of all the other toffs residing in that locality.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 05:46 AM
link   



June 2013
First the UK rejected Smart Meters.













Then in August, British Gas puts this video out.
Smart Meters are good! says they.














In Toronto, the inevitability of Smart Meters is already evident.


Smart meters are inexplicably reporting double the energy usage




Mike Grouchy



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 05:53 AM
link   
I remember when all the energy supply was sold to the private sector. People said then that prices would rise and rise while service would fall.
That's exactly what happened.
Every time someone wants to make a profit out of an essential service the costs to consumers go up while the benefits disappear.
Why won't anyone ever learn?
edit on 47pFri, 28 Mar 2014 06:57:47 -050020142014-03-28T06:57:47-05:00kAmerica/Chicago31000000k by SprocketUK because: cos I'm an idiot who can't spell



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 06:46 AM
link   
So this is why Tasmania got hooked up to the mainland of Australia, so they could include all states in rolling black outs to up the price. I see why now.
it will happen in Australia eventually.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Britguy
But experience tells us that once the tax breaks are there, they'll be lobbying like crazy to keep them in place and the taxpayers will be taxed more to make up the difference.


Actually, no it doesn't. There are a great many examples of tax breaks which were lifted at a later date - the same as tax rises that have then been rescinded.

They come and they go, the same as tax rises.

Take North Sea Oil for example, in 2011, the Chancellor taxed the buggery out of them - then last year and this year he has brought in tax breaks to encourage investment, to the tune of several billion and hundreds of jobs added but at the same time has taxed inter-corporate transfers which will actually increase tax revenue by £500 million from North Sea oil, Also, the top rate for taxing their revenue is high, at around 80%.

The idea behind it is to encourage investment by giving tax breaks on that expense (which is usually huge) but therefore increasing production and revenues which is taxed quite highly.

Or for something closer to home, look at the scrappage allowance for new cars they brought in for a couple of years (temporary), the lowering of VAT to 15% (temporary) or the raising of the personal allowance (permanent).


Britguy
A couple of bribes.... sorry, campaign donations... and a couple of appointments of the right people,in the right places, and we can kiss the mythical tax revenues goodbye.


I don't really believe that "bribery" is that much of a problem in the UK - there are strict rules with regards to party funding and all donations/loans have to be recorded and are available for public viewing here. The whole thing is monitored by the independent Electoral Commission.

Appointments are a bit harder to judge - I am sure there are probably a few who get it on the basis of scratching someone's back but then that isn't really much different than getting a job through a mate or family member etc that the rest of us have done at some point or another.


Britguy
As for the Fracking sites in Oxfordshire, we all know that what Cameron says, and what actually happens are a gulf apart.


Really? I know he has flip-flopped on a couple of issues, but we all change our minds or do something wrong, but generally speaking, this Government has done an awful lot of what they were voted into office to do. Getting the manufacturing industry growing again for example, cutting the budget back to a manageable level, getting the economy back on track and getting people back into work.

Certainly they have done a better job at sorting this country out in 4 years than Labour did in 13, who oversaw the massive reduction in manufacturing and actively encourage the reliance on the banking sector while at the same time spending money like it was going out of fashion.


Britguy
He would not allow this crap in his own backyard, spoiling the views from his country seat and lowering his property value, as well as that of all the other toffs residing in that locality.


A bit of an assumption and generalisation, no? As a politician, he can;t now actively oppose fracking in "his backyard" as he has been pushing it hard and publicly said he'd welcome it. And Oxfordshire isn't "full of toffs"



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SprocketUK
 


I agree - we should renationalise Water and Power, with a possible view at the Railway as well. The French and Germans do it, despite EU rules, why can't we? Problem is, with the Tories it is unlikely to happen as they are very much into the whole "free market" thing, which is fine and usually works, but in certain examples of where there is a monopoly (Water) or market dominance by a cartel (Power), it doesn't.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   

stumason
reply to post by SprocketUK
 


I agree - we should renationalise Water and Power, with a possible view at the Railway as well. The French and Germans do it, despite EU rules, why can't we? Problem is, with the Tories it is unlikely to happen as they are very much into the whole "free market" thing, which is fine and usually works, but in certain examples of where there is a monopoly (Water) or market dominance by a cartel (Power), it doesn't.



Labour aren't any different these days.

The only way something like that would happen would be following some kind of revolution in thinking or some huge disaster that forced the government of the day to step in and take over.

Way too many vested interests to let it happen in the ordinary way.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by SprocketUK
 


There is genuine public support for it and it could be a vote winner (and make all the difference in next years to-close-to call election).

But you are right, it is unlikely.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


As always stu you make some reasoned, informed and valid arguments.
But I've got to take issue with one important point;



The reason we nationalised was not really anything to do with "Thatcher", but rather as a result of EU law - she had no choice, really - but as with most things with the EU, the UK followed the rules while the French/Germans don't and we lose out.


Yes, we do pander to EU law and directives far too much but the EU had nothing to do with the privatisation policies of Thatcher and to a lesser extent subsequent administrations. It was a cornerstone of her ideology. She was vehemently opposed to state ownership of anything.

When Ted Heath was in opposition in 1970 he instigated a series of meetings which gave rise to The Selsdon Group who were determined to implement Free Market policies.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
Whilst Opposition Leader in 1977 Thatcher asked Nicholas Ridley to report on the state of the nationalised industries in the UK and as a result produced a blueprint for fighting a strike in any of the nationalised industries.
en.wikipedia.org...
This plan was followed almost to the letter during The Miners Strike and other disputes. (It was actually expanded upon to use agent provocateurs and other dubious practices as well).

Thatcher was a master of propaganda and manipulation and used these disputes to demonise Trade Unions and sell the myth that by privatising these industries they would be free from excessive and detrimental union interference and that they would be able to thrive in a free market economy.
Of course this required several pieces of legislation to enable this to happen.

From Thatcher's perspective this was a win-win situation. The power of the unions were vastly diminished and the utility and other relevant industries were freed from what she thought were the 'shackles' of state ownership.

That is something of brief summarisation and possibly even an over simplification - there were many other factors and related issues. But as far as I can recall and according to everything I have read since at no time was EU policy or pressures a consideration or important factor.
I'd genuinely be pleased if you could direct me towards anything that suggests the EU did play a role in the privatisation policies of Thatcher.

Two interesting and informative articles that have opposing bias on the history of privatisation since Thatcher.
www.telegraph.co.uk... atised.html
www.theguardian.com...

Neither mention anything about the EU having any significant role.

As I've said a few times before; I firmly believe that the utility companies and other key services should be re-nationalised - but with the proviso that they are managed in an efficient, professional yet transparent manner whilst being carefully monitored and audited.
edit on 28/3/14 by Freeborn because: typo, clarity and grammar



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Fair enough


It was a bit before my time and what I have been told/read implies it is as a result of EU regulations - I still think that it was a bit of both as the EU forced market de-regulation for the energy markets in the late 80's/early 90's. This probably played into Thatchers hands, as it happens.

Oddly enough though, I have read of various EU bureaucrats who have admitted recently that perhaps de-regulation doesn't work in all markets and there should be a distinction between an "open market" and one for "universal services", such as rail, water, power etc..

Also, under EU law (as has been used by the French/Germans) if something is deemed to be in the "national interest" or "strategic" then they can bypass EU market law and retain national control. Of course, we followed the rules to the letter while the French/Germans didn't and now they own the bulk of our power companies.

A government with the balls to to grab the nettle should seriously look at taking these into public ownership, but not as they were in the past. You can understand why the Government of the day wanted to offload these bloated industries as they had, for years, been used as a political tool to buy votes by providing jobs/pensions.

For example, when BT was privatised, they offloaded over 100,000 jobs yet still retained the same level of service, proof that state industries of the past were over-bloated. If they could still run them as a "for profit" business but owned by the State, so strategic decisions could be made in the national interest without worrying about "shareholders", then I think it could work.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 




It was a bit before my time


Unfortunately mate I remember it all too well.



Oddly enough though, I have read of various EU bureaucrats who have admitted recently that perhaps de-regulation doesn't work in all markets and there should be a distinction between an "open market" and one for "universal services", such as rail, water, power etc..


Sense and the EU just doesn't seem to sit right does it.
If only they could display this level of intelligence and realism more often there might actually be some hope for the EU.



A government with the balls to to grab the nettle should seriously look at taking these into public ownership, but not as they were in the past.


I'm afraid that won't happen in the foreseeable future.
'Nationalisation' is strictly verboten and considered more of a sin to mention than the other n-word in most political circles, especially with The Tories. Never would those Thatcher devotees like Cameron / Osbourne etc allow such a thing.
Mind you, those spineless PC ridden morons in control of Labour wouldn't dare be so bold as to even begin to have a debate on the pro's and con's of nationalisation.
Two sides of the same coin.



You can understand why the Government of the day wanted to offload these bloated industries as they had, for years, been used as a political tool to buy votes by providing jobs/pensions.


They were serially mis-managed at every level, nepotism and cronyism were rampant, modern management and working practices were actively opposed by all and as much as it pains me to say it they suffered from far too much union interference and influence.
They required a radical and drastic overhaul at every level and department.
But with vision and determination they were far from redemption.
Yes, it would be hard, but its not beyond belief that they could be turned around to deliver quality products and services to the nation whilst operating in an efficient and dare we say profitable manner.

And if that profit was in turn re-invested back into those industries and into UK society as a whole instead of being syphoned out of the country or into private shareholders coffers well then surely we'd all gain, wouldn't we?
Seems pretty simple to me.



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   

stumason
reply to post by Britguy
 


The tax breaks for fracking are to promote investment - once matured, they will be taxed like the Oil fields. Incidentally, the tax for those last year was lowered to promote some more investment, then when that comes on stream, it gets milked.

It is also arguable that lower taxes means more tax receipts - simple economics really. I can explain this reasoning if it seems counter-intuitive.

As for fracking in Cameron's yard, he says he is quite happy for it to go ahead and Oxfordshire has actually highlighted several possible sites already. I get some people want to hate on the Tories/PM/Politicians in general, but lets not make stuff up, shall we? There is plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike them without making false accusations as that just makes you look a bit daft.

As with the bit about privatisations, I am generally in agreement although I think some industries have faired better than others.
Actually his back yard isn't Oxfordshire that's his constituency . His family comes from Berkshire, it is well known where he stands on this . Cameron, being one of the millionaires I mention earlier in this post is probably heavily invested already in these energy companies and some of the fracking companies also . It is outrageous to even have these people in Government . Government should only be administrators and nothing more , they only have their rich mates interests at heart and NOT this countries , that is clear .



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by adarma
 


You're right about Cameron - but to be fair exactly the same could be said of the previous administration.

Blair had more Eton / Oxbridge types - and millionaires - in his cabinet than any other Prime Minister since the 1800's. A feat since surpassed by Cameron.

And as for looking after vested interests Blair was probably on a par with Cameron.....and Major, and Thatcher, and Brown........



posted on Mar, 28 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   
i don't know what it is, but it seems that whenever a power company is investigated blackouts happen. that's how it happens in the Philippines. investigate them and blackouts occur. rather suspicious after all they are not taking equipment or anything apart or offline in these investigations, and paperwork shouldn't have any effect at all, which is what such an investigation is looking at. but it never fails to cause blackouts somehow.
yup no hanky panky going on at all.

now when i was living in North America, i once tried to save cash by cutting down my electricity usage. this during a time the companies were doing their normal cut down on power as it is in short supply routines. so i did my part (more to save money of course), and cut down where i could. now at that time i spent most of the day at work so that was a big chunk of time of non use. when home i would only have one light on where i was, (being summer i didn't even need a light a lot of the time), not every light in the apartment going. it was summer so i did most of my cooking out on my BBQ. didn't run my aircon. only was using one laptop instead of my normal 2 or 3 desktops and lap top computers, didn't watch too many videos (it was nice out so i read on my balcony a lot), pretty much cut out most of my power usage. then i got my bill. i really hadn't saved any money over the bill before that at all, a few bucks that was it. so i actually read the particulars of the bill for once instead of just the bottom line. MOST of my bill was and had been THE BILLING FEES, and other crap which is not dependent on power use that they charge you for, not the actual power usage. these power monopolies are raking money in while complaining about how much the have to send to buy power from outside sources and claiming the need to cut down. yet then you hear about times when the have a power surplus because people have cut back on their use, and they then freak about the COST of having to PAY other areas to TAKE their surplus power so the system doesn't get damaged.
so you have to pay to get more power then you have to pay to get rid of power? sounds like some serious FRAUD to me.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join