How is this not a national scandal?

LiamforkingLiamforking Posts: 1,641
Forum Member
✭✭✭
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233109/Power-firms-profits-surge-38-goes-QUARTER.html

We, the people, are being absolutely screwed blind by these greedy bastards (and in some cases actually frozen to death) and we cannot do a damn thing about it because we have no choice but to buy our energy from one of the cartel members.

We'd be better off if we'd sold British gas to the mafia.

We are literally having money stolen from us and put into the pockets of rich shareholders.
Why are MPs from all sides not being dragged onto programs like Newsnight and made to answer for why they are allowing this obscenity to continue?

Innocent elderly people will die this winter as a direct result of these capitalist amoral pieces of sh*t.

Comments

  • hustedhusted Posts: 5,287
    Forum Member
    The government hope you will blame wind farms.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 506
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    At least half the threads on DS appear to cite the daily mail as a source.

    Is it just this week, or is the mail the uk's finest news source???
  • thenetworkbabethenetworkbabe Posts: 45,554
    Forum Member
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233109/Power-firms-profits-surge-38-goes-QUARTER.html

    We, the people, are being absolutely screwed blind by these greedy bastards (and in some cases actually frozen to death) and we cannot do a damn thing about it because we have no choice but to buy our energy from one of the cartel members.

    We'd be better off if we'd sold British gas to the mafia.

    We are literally having money stolen from us and put into the pockets of rich shareholders.
    Why are MPs from all sides not being dragged onto programs like Newsnight and made to answer for why they are allowing this obscenity to continue?

    Innocent elderly people will die this winter as a direct result of these capitalist amoral pieces of sh*t.

    Its got very little to do with shareholders. Shares are still well below their 2000 level and those shareholders have lost money on them. Many firms pay very low dividends (BT for example) and the utilities that do pay more, tend not to grow in value much at all so the dividend barely covers inflation. An index linked national savings certificate would probably have paid pay more since 2000. Many companies are not owned by shareholders now either. Increasing numbers have been taken private by big private equity concerns, or taken out of the market by their majority owners. More are owned by overseas companies , or by Sovereign Wealth funds that take any return back to the UAE or Chinese governments . That means the direct benefits of profits are not going to people here who might want to invest in them , or to other people's pensions funds. Wealth is being concentrated in fewer hands, but the average shareholder isn't doing well either.
  • charliesayscharliesays Posts: 1,367
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Its got very little to do with shareholders. Shares are still well below their 2000 level and those shareholders have lost money on them. Many firms pay very low dividends (BT for example) and the utilities that do pay more, tend not to grow in value much at all so the dividend barely covers inflation. An index linked national savings certificate would probably have paid pay more since 2000. Many companies are not owned by shareholders now either. Increasing numbers have been taken private by big private equity concerns, or taken out of the market by their majority owners. More are owned by overseas companies , or by Sovereign Wealth funds that take any return back to the UAE or Chinese governments . That means the direct benefits of profits are not going to people here who might want to invest in them , or to other people's pensions funds. Wealth is being concentrated in fewer hands, but the average shareholder isn't doing well either.

    How dare you come on here and talk remarkable sense.

    I'll go with the ignorant bombast of others thanks very much.
  • Re-MinderRe-Minder Posts: 759
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    florencee wrote: »
    At least half the threads on DS appear to cite the daily mail as a source.

    Is it just this week, or is the mail the uk's finest news source???

    DM is viagra for the stupid :D
  • Jellied EelJellied Eel Posts: 33,091
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    husted wrote: »
    The government hope you will blame wind farms.

    Well, those just add to our energy bills because of the big subsidies they need. Labour's probably hoping you'll ignore this-

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19791424

    Labour promises to scrap energy regulator Ofgem

    Labour has announced plans to get rid of the body charged with protecting consumer rights and regulating the gas and electricity market.

    ..Labour has focused on promoting policies to reduce the cost of living without making new spending commitments, with leader Ed Miliband arguing the party is "on your side"


    Wonder if Labour and Ed were on our side when Ed turned a Friends of the Earth paper into our £18bn+ a year Climate Change Act? Or were Labour on our side when they created Ofgem, and scrapped price controls because competition was working in our interests? Allegedly.
  • allaortaallaorta Posts: 19,050
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233109/Power-firms-profits-surge-38-goes-QUARTER.html

    We, the people, are being absolutely screwed blind by these greedy bastards (and in some cases actually frozen to death) and we cannot do a damn thing about it because we have no choice but to buy our energy from one of the cartel members.

    We'd be better off if we'd sold British gas to the mafia.

    We are literally having money stolen from us and put into the pockets of rich shareholders. Why are MPs from all sides not being dragged onto programs like Newsnight and made to answer for why they are allowing this obscenity to continue?

    Innocent elderly people will die this winter as a direct result of these capitalist amoral pieces of sh*t.

    Or even pension funds!
  • smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    OK, a couple of simple questions:
    Should the energy companies buy gas and electricity on the open market and then sell it to customers at a loss?
    If an energy company produces its own gas or electricity (through owning power stations or gas fields), should they reduce their prices to customers and get slammed by the competition commission for having an unfair advantage over companies that dont have the same assets?
    How much profit per customer should an energy company make as a percentage of turnover?
  • wallsterwallster Posts: 17,609
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Innocent elderly people will die this winter as a direct result of these capitalist amoral pieces of sh*t.

    Elederly people get winter fuel allowance.
  • jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,988
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I thought the DM was a national scandal.

    They should refer the whole lot of the energy suppliers to the Competition Commission.
  • iamsofirediamsofired Posts: 13,054
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    So British Gas makes 345 million in 6 months but has 12 million customers so thats £28 profit per customer over 6 months - is that really a scandal?
  • cpu121cpu121 Posts: 5,330
    Forum Member
    Because outwith the minds of the Daily Mail there is no scandal.

    For the six months to September 2012, SSE's retail segment made an operating profit of £75.7m, following an operating loss of £101.4m a year ago.

    The retail segment also supplies services as well as energy. For Energy Supply alone, the profit margin was just 1.5%.

    The increase in profit partly comes from an increase in customers and increases in consumption (gas up 27.9%, electricity up 2.8%) - reflecting very good weather last year versuses much wetter and colder weather this year.

    The Daily Mail states how enormous these figures are compared to 2011's. What they do not mention is that the 2012 figures are actually close to the 2010 figures and previous years. In other words, 2011 was the aberration, reflected by the large operating loss made last year.
  • LiamforkingLiamforking Posts: 1,641
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Re-Minder wrote: »
    DM is viagra for the stupid :D

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/14/sse-utility-profits-up-40percent?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

    Now can we actually debate the subject.
    Some of you people are unbelievable.
  • Jellied EelJellied Eel Posts: 33,091
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    cpu121 wrote: »
    The retail segment also supplies services as well as energy. For Energy Supply alone, the profit margin was just 1.5%.

    And Starbucks makes no profits in the UK. Beware segment accounting and dubious profit calculations.
    The increase in profit partly comes from an increase in customers and increases in consumption (gas up 27.9%, electricity up 2.8%) - reflecting very good weather last year versuses much wetter and colder weather this year.

    True, this was just the summer bonus. The bumper bonus will come next half-year when Winter fuel bills have screwed the customers with that 9% pay rise. But see also-

    But on Wednesday the group said improvements in operating profits at its wholesale and transmission businesses saw adjusted profits rise from £287.4m to £397.5m on revenues that slipped slightly from £11.8bn to £11.4bn.
  • rusty123rusty123 Posts: 22,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    OK, a couple of simple questions:
    Should the energy companies buy gas and electricity on the open market and then sell it to customers at a loss?
    If an energy company produces its own gas or electricity (through owning power stations or gas fields), should they reduce their prices to customers and get slammed by the competition commission for having an unfair advantage over companies that dont have the same assets?
    How much profit per customer should an energy company make as a percentage of turnover?

    The problem I have (and admittedly i'm basically ignorant of the detail) centres around how these companies do their buying. I've always been lead to believe they do deals in bulk and negogiate a fixed price over a period of the next 6 months or so. In order for all of them to put their prices up by the same amount at the same time logic suggests they must all be buying at the same price at the exact same time. I can't believe that's what happens because the wholesale value would go up and down like a **** drawers if they were all doing deals at the exact same time which makes me suspicious that this is just one big cartel and there isn't any competition at all.

    As I said I'm totally ignorant of the detail so that suspicion may be totally unfounded, but being as spokespeople for these companies only talk about their own company rather than industry practices and all offer the same excuses for large increases and minimal reductions whwn applicable it's a nagging doubt that aint going away any time soon.
  • smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    rusty123 wrote: »
    The problem I have (and admittedly i'm basically ignorant of the detail) centres around how these companies do their buying. I've always been lead to believe they do deals in bulk and negogiate a fixed price over a period of the next 6 months or so. In order for all of them to put their prices up by the same amount at the same time logic suggests they must all be buying at the same price at the exact same time. I can't believe that's what happens because the wholesale value would go up and down like a **** drawers if they were all doing deals at the exact same time which makes me suspicious that this is just one big cartel and there isn't any competition at all.

    As I said I'm totally ignorant of the detail so that suspicion may be totally unfounded, but being as spokespeople for these companies only talk about their own company rather than industry practices and all offer the same excuses for large increases and minimal reductions whwn applicable it's a nagging doubt that aint going away any time soon.

    A lot of the UK contracts are for "day ahead pricing" which means that the price that companies like EdFT, SSE, BGT etc pay varies day by day. The prices paid for LNG and imported gas are more likely to be set several months ahead.

    What it means is that the entire production of a field by one company (most fields are owned by 3-4 different oil companies) is bought by a buyer for the duration of production. The daily price varies due to demand and supply, so if it's a really cold day and everyone has their central heating on and the power stations are going at full blast the price rises, but if it's a warm summer day then the price is low because there is low demand. It can go to extremes, such as one day a few years ago it went into negative prices (buyers were paid to take the gas) as there was so little demand (the gas was a by-product of oil production, all the usual gas fields were shut in) and I've also seen it go over £2 per therm (aroung 65p/therm at the moment).
Sign In or Register to comment.