Half of Tory Voters want energy re-nationalising.

The water industry cannot be compared with international energy companies, and I believe should be publicly owned.

Mamie

Yes DaisyAnne the prices are controlled too. I think historically they were organisations developed between municipalities and other companies to supply drinking water.

Interesting Mamie. Thank you for helping with this.

Farzanah

The problem is that the wholesale energy prices have shot up on the international markets, resulting in huge profits for the energy producers. These international energy producers are not subject to UK jurisdiction so it may be hard to even impose a windfall tax on them.

Proposals such as nationalising energy companies will make little difference, as their profits are not huge, and some have gone out of business. Proposals such as removing green levies and tax are just tinkering around the edges. The government are going to have to hugely subsidise energy costs to prevent businesses going bust and people freezing. It is a very grim picture I think.

But it appears they all "shot up" because they were all coupled with gas. Much of the gas market is controlled by dictatorships, many of whom have no reason to like the West.

You are right about no need to nationalise (if there is ever any need for governments to run companies) the distributors. They are doing a good job and need to be left to get on with it. It is the producers that are making all the money and decoupling will limit this. A first step.

Whatever the government do I reach the same conclusion about them every time. They are mad. In the same way that Putin is made. Add to that the fact that they are incompetent and this winter and next will certainly not be fun for many.

Farzanah

The water industry cannot be compared with international energy companies, and I believe should be publicly owned.

I cannot think that we need government, and therefore the unions, running businesses. I don't want either of them doing this. But someone will come along and say something and the reason why it will work this time round will click in my brain

I don't think anyone is saying that unions should run business. Nationalisation does not automatically mean that, and we are not living in the 70s. A nationalised industry would be run by the government with a CEO equivalent (can't think of the name) running the industry and reporting to the relevant minister.

All the same, if there is a choice between unions running the business in the interests of the workers and the present situation which is run in the interests of the shareholders, the former would be preferable to me.

I think it's a strange leap from 'the government running the business' to 'the unions running it'.

Many of us lived through the era of state run utility companies but, my memory may well be imperfect, I don't recall much, or anything at all in the way of the workers in those companies taking industrial action.

If unions had never been formed workers in this country would suffer even more exploitation than they do today and the reason that they now have better rights and conditions. Just look at the jobs where there are few union members, or where employees are discouraged from joining a union.

As you say Doodledog we are not living in the 70s when there was a concerted effort by thatcher to get rid of unions, in the ideology that free market is best, which clearly has not always proved to be the case. I agree with you modern nationalisation rather than profits for shareholders for the water industry. I don’t think privatisation is always wrong but it has not proved better in running water companies (or rail come to that).

Mamie

Yes DaisyAnne the prices are controlled too. I think historically they were organisations developed between municipalities and other companies to supply drinking water.

Until 3 or 4 years ago our commune owned the water supply. It was sold to a company - RDE24 - and the price went up. Our consumption has remained the same but the standing charges have increased substantially.

Daisy Anne, that can only be good news.

People who argue against nationalisation always talk about how terrible British Rail was. But in those days most products and services did not have the benefit of advanced engineering and technology.

We didn't have a car when I was young and if we travelled any distance we went on a coach - the coach company was called Corona. They were awful things, trundling along belching out fumes, small windows, uncomfortable seats - I dreaded going on them and was always travel sick. You couldn't possibly compare them to the coaches of today.

Other European countries have some form of nationalised services - and many of those countries are actually running our privatised services.

And the cost of rail fares, certainly in France, are a lot cheaper. When will people realise that one reason costs of utilities are much higher in England because of the shareholders' payouts and the enormous director's salaries and bonuses?

I'm not against the profit motive per se - I run a small business myself. But no one should be making profits out of the basic necessities of life - lighting heating, water, health and public transport.

Doodledog

I don't think anyone is saying that unions should run business. Nationalisation does not automatically mean that, and we are not living in the 70s. A nationalised industry would be run by the government with a CEO equivalent (can't think of the name) running the industry and reporting to the relevant minister.

All the same, if there is a choice between unions running the business in the interests of the workers and the present situation which is run in the interests of the shareholders, the former would be preferable to me.

Doodledog

I don't think anyone is saying that unions should run business. Nationalisation does not automatically mean that, and we are not living in the 70s.

Really. If anything this feels worse. That is why I want whatever solution chosen to work for all and that does not mean run as any extreme would run it.

Dinahmo

Mamie

Yes DaisyAnne the prices are controlled too. I think historically they were organisations developed between municipalities and other companies to supply drinking water.

Until 3 or 4 years ago our commune owned the water supply. It was sold to a company - RDE24 - and the price went up. Our consumption has remained the same but the standing charges have increased substantially.

Interesting Dinahmo. I still prefer the idea of community ownership and this is an example of why.

Again, what is good about state ownership or worker control? A community can and should have the power to make it work for them.

Why did the commune sell the water supply, Dinahmo?

I'm struggling with the idea of community ownership. How big a community? How would the service interact with other community run railways across the country? Who would be responsible for track maintenance, purchase/lease of rolling stock? Would community ownership over ride the advantages of bulk purchasing which a centrally run service would have?

British Rail was always run regionally. What was wrong with that model?

I'll turn the question round, too.

"What is so bad about state ownership or worker control (the two not being synonymous)?"

I used BR quite regularly before privatisation. It was usually efficient and affordable. Rolling stock was not good in the 50s & 60s, but that was lack of investment.

Did the commune run the whole network Dinahmo? How did they link up with all the surrounding networks, read metres, manage checks and purification etc? Not doubting you obviously, but am interested to know how a volunteer Conseil Municipal did all that.

If you are going to ask the questions in the way that you are Maizie and Mamie, it would be good to point out how things are managed currently, as that is from where we are coming. I'm always happy to learn.

However, I am sure many who support Nationalisation haven't a clue how each natural monopoly would work under such a system. So it's a learning curve for all of us.

(I will catch up later as I am now off out shopping. Must go today as my wheelbarrow full of cash will not be worth half as much tomorrow when all the Conservative Members have voted, and we will, presumably, get an exit poll.)

Mamie

Did the commune run the whole network Dinahmo? How did they link up with all the surrounding networks, read metres, manage checks and purification etc? Not doubting you obviously, but am interested to know how a volunteer Conseil Municipal did all that.

The decision to sell was made by our local maire. I think that he got fed up with it.

Our water meter is buried in a box close to the road and my DH used to have to clear the undergrowth once a year for the meter to be read. He would invariably find the odd snake hiding. There is a purification plant on the outskirts of the village which is still being used and the water came from more than one spring.

I don't now any more about the system.

The French are strange sometimes. I have to pay a tax because I work from home. It's not much - about 150 euros a year, paid in December. A friend, who had water tanks installed when his house was built so that he could be self sufficient, received a demand for water because any rain landing on his roofs was the property of the water company.
We have a fosse septique and our not connected to the mains drains (not yet gone up road) and we have to pay a sewage
fee. If we need to have our tank emptied (which we haven't yet) we would have to pay.

However, I am sure many who support Nationalisation haven't a clue how each natural monopoly would work under such a system. So it's a learning curve for all of us.

No, but we know how it worked before privatisation. Mostly the utilities seem to have been regionalised. Where I was brought up we had Eastern National buses (and Corporation buses and some private companies, so it wasn't fully nationalised) and an Eastern Electricity Board. I can't say about gas or water because I wasn't really old enough to be aware (i.e not a householder) . I could google it...

We don't know how it would work under the community ownership that you like the idea of. I was just wondering if you had any details in mind.

A friend, who had water tanks installed when his house was built so that he could be self sufficient, received a demand for water because any rain landing on his roofs was the property of the water company.

That's interesting, Dinahmo, because I understand that the same applies in the UK. I don't tell our water company about my spring. I really don't see why a guy in Hong Kong should profit from it...

Dinahmo we have always had a fosse septique and pay our annual contribution to SPANC. We have it emptied about once every four years, but more if it gets blocked. ?
Reading our water meter involves lying on the ground and taking a photo of the meter a few feet down. Got to love rural living. ?

Further to the above we are on limestone with aquifers underground and we usually have heavy rainfall (which is why the Dordogne is so green). I doubt that there's many communal systems left in France now.

I don't think that a community system would work so well in the UK, certainly not for water. Earlier this summer when a possible water shortage was mentioned in the UK I remember reading that the water sources weren't as well connected as they could be to enable water being shifted from one part of he country to the other.

There are around 1300 reservoirs in the British Isles owned by different water companies. (not 1300 companies). Imagine the paperwork involved in dealing a myriad of communities.

I think that the provision of water should be nationalised because it is the most essential nutrient to enable us to live. There does need to be an overhaul of the infrastructure and a serious attempt to deal with leaks.

Mamie

Dinahmo we have always had a fosse septique and pay our annual contribution to SPANC. We have it emptied about once every four years, but more if it gets blocked. ?
Reading our water meter involves lying on the ground and taking a photo of the meter a few feet down. Got to love rural living. ?

My DH pours a small amount of liquid via the loo once a moth so our fosse is working efficiently.

MaizieD I didn't know that the same applied in England.

DaisyAnne

Doodledog

I don't think anyone is saying that unions should run business. Nationalisation does not automatically mean that, and we are not living in the 70s. A nationalised industry would be run by the government with a CEO equivalent (can't think of the name) running the industry and reporting to the relevant minister.

All the same, if there is a choice between unions running the business in the interests of the workers and the present situation which is run in the interests of the shareholders, the former would be preferable to me.

Doodledog

I don't think anyone is saying that unions should run business. Nationalisation does not automatically mean that, and we are not living in the 70s.

Really. If anything this feels worse. That is why I want whatever solution chosen to work for all and that does not mean run as any extreme would run it.

Why worse (and why 'really'?)

My point is that when we has nationalised industries there was (eg) a head of the NCB, who reported to the government, so the organisation was run-in accordance with the policies of the day.

The fact that nationalised industries suffered from industrial unrest was more to do with external factors like inflation and the union laws of the day than with unionism per se.

If we renationalised utilities now, it would be in a very different legal landscape, and there is anyway no reason why unions would have any more sway there than anywhere else. The privatised rail companies are not doing very well on an industrial relations front, are they?

Unions are not extremists, IMO. They exist to get a fair deal for their members, and without them, as Farzanah points out, many of the things we take for granted (weekends, paid holidays, maternity leave and sick pay) would not have happened. There have been times when they needed to take extreme measures to gain the basic rights, but that doesn't mean that the unions' aims are extreme.

The water companies have a licence to print money as monopolies. Water should be nationalized and all income reinvested in better sewage treatment and leak reduction.

My view exactly.