observer Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 It's a lot more simple than that Asp: cut out the middle man by cutting out the greedy shareholders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Correct obs. All that happens is that differing rates are applied for the first 1000 or so kw hours and a different rate for the next 1000 and so on. The companies juggle these about so that some have lower rates for the first tier but make up for it with higher rates for the second and third tiers etc. Some apply a standing charge others don't. Some bod once did a survey of all gas and electric companies using a fixed number of kwh's over the period of a year and found that the difference between the cheapest company and the dearest was just ?13. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 If you can get a better deal, its worth swopping until the next better deal comes along. A 1 or 2 year fixed price deal are always worth going for. In this day and age, people should chase the better option. Do you get your petrol from the same garage even if it is 2p a litre cheaper down the road? :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Yes actually, cos I'm not that tight that I would be bothered swopping and changing every five minutes for a tempory cheap deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 If you're not bothered about paying above the odds Obs, then I wonder what you're complaining about. After all if everybody took your attitude the price of everything would go through the roof (market forces). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Originally posted by observer: Yes actually, cos I'm not that tight that I would be bothered swopping and changing every five minutes for a tempory cheap deal. Most people don't have a council pension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Seems your guessing again Pierre! As for Asp; affordability governs demand and in the ideal concept of the "market place"; if folk can't afford something, they don't buy it; and the product doesn't sell or only sells to the wealthy; and thus in theory, prices are constrained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Pontificate all you like Obs, but the fact remains that nationalisation doesn't equate to affordability. In fact the history of nationalised utilities shows the opposite with inefficiency thrown in for good measure. People can, and do, chop and change suppliers and that is how some measure of restraint is put on the market. If you want something cheaper you have to shop around and that holds good for anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Maybe some folk don't want the inconvenience of "shopping around". [ 22.02.2008, 12:31: Message edited by: observer ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Looking around I think you should look a little closer, and cast your mind back to the "good old days" pre-privatisation. Rail aside the others are doing nicely without tax propping them up. As for Northern Rock - yes a disaster for the government because they have been left holding the unprofitable bits. All the profitable bits were moved offshore while they weren't looking. The government has saddled us with the huge debt by their incompetence. They made the wrong decisions all the way down the line until nationalisation was the only option left to them. If it had been the right thing to do they would have done it months ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 "tax propping them up" - that's the whole point of a Nationalised Service Asp: to allow Government (the taxpayer) to subsidise a service in the national interest - thus in the case of transport, to allow workers to get to work without being mugged by "private" rail companies. As for NR, they had two options at the very beginning: either let it go into receivership and risk a million votes in the N/East and possibly the mortgages and savings of some MPs: OR Nationalise it asap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Which is what I said :confused: :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Not quite: the fault was the "prevarication" rather than the nationalisation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 In the case of NR, the reason it got into the state it did was that the regulatory control was altered back in the late 90s and instead of it being the Bank of England (who would have sorted it out early on probably by arranging for it to be taken over), it became tripartite...BoE, Financial Services Agency ( B. useless)and Treasury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.