£1.7bn put aside aside to cover the collapse of ‘Bulb’ energy company, aptly named as it went out like a light. Interestingly the article claims that an executive at another energy company anticipates significant interest in acquiring the company once it is ‘unshackled’ from its debts. So the cycle of utilities paying dividends for eff all squared, while consumers pay high prices, can continue. This is how the capitalist class looks after its interests ahead of yours. An extra £20 a week for the poorest to keep warm? A luxury that cannot be maintained. Billions to ensure the wealthy can keep on promoting the self-serving lie that the market provides? Sure. http://news.sky.com/story/collapse-...leaving-taxpayers-to-take-the-strain-12477266
Still some way to go to beat what the UK Government did to under-write the banks in 2007. I remember it being reported, before the crash, that Labour were doing so, and had pretty much the same reaction being expressed in the title of thread. If it is being done to create continuity of service to those relying on it, I have some small sympathy. But what is next? If Tesco ever goes under, we are f'ed. But this isn't capitalism. It is a socialist response (nationalisation as a safety net) to a capitalist problem. Whether it is responsible or not, we can decide for ourselves.
Businesses are being forced to offer something for a third less than they can purchase it, and we’re surprised that energy companies are collapsing? That energy prices will inevitably rise was always an issue with an energy price cap. The Tories sensibly argued against the policy, then the idiots who followed them stole the bad idea.
The problem has been caused by trying to create a false market out of energy so shareholders can take billions. It’s simply parasitic. The companies provide little more than marketing and a bill, yet they were taking the poorest to the cleaners. Energy is way too important and they’ve built few reserves to ride out any bumps. The money that should have been there (at the prices being charged) is in private pockets.
As far as I’m aware, UK energy companies don’t generally make a huge amount of profit as the industry is highly regulated and the barrier to entry is now pretty low. Dividends are paid at something like 1% a year, which I imagine is far less than the savings made through having a competitive energy market/ smart trackers etc. Bulb coming to the market, funded by private money, charging cheaper and greener tariffs, then collapsing is actually not a bad thing for consumers if there is someone willing to take their place. The issue is that Bulb can’t increase costs to reflect true market conditions. That might have allowed investors to keep them alive long enough to survive, or more likely, for customers to leave more slowly so the government didn’t need to intervene. The government should prioritise its efforts on investing huge amounts of money in supporting poorer people to insulate their homes.
TBF a 'lot' of these companies (and other energy intensive industries), or more exactly the brokers they 'employ', sold their 'futures' in the 'spot' market and made an absolute killing before the CEO's were wheeled out to bleat about not being able to afford to buy at the spot price...
It’s nice that you ‘imagine’ it, but that’s the trouble with advocates of the private sector. They have wild imaginations and imagine efficiencies and benefits that don’t exist. What we know is that the energy companies have made billions for shareholders by creating a complicated consumer market that preyed on the vulnerable, pensioners who found it too confusing to switch, while offering very little in the form of investment.
Well said. But please stay away from any motorway slip roads, should you get the urge have a picnic on the tarmac.
