The expectations of nationalisation – politicalbetting.com
The expectations of nationalisation – politicalbetting.com
Britons tend to expect that bills would be cheaper if utilities were nationalised, following Andy Burnham saying nationalisation would "absolutely be an option" if he was PMWaterCheaper: 39%Similar: 22%More expensive: 14%ElectricityCheaper: 39%Similar: 20%More expensive: 16%
1
Comments
Shouldn't it?
Why anyone imagines electricity would be is frankly bizarre.
Government is already responsible for much of what determines the pricing.
A freer market in electricity, which drove prices down over time, is entirely possible to bring about.
The second joint international contract was awarded today for the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), the next-generation fighter aircraft development programme between Italy, Japan and the UK.
https://www.edgewing.com/article/gcap-contract-edgewing0
It will be interesting to see if that now attracts any other partners (eg Germany or Canada).
On train tickets, as we all know, if you can book a particular train a month in advance, you can find some very reasonable fares. Mrs Stodge and I did first class from Derby back to London last week on one of the new EMR Aurora trains - very comfortable and they kept coming by with free refreshments and my first thought was it would be rude not to...
The problem was electricity is the supply is effectively a cartel which, while not a monopoly, functions like one and is the end result of private provision in many instances. This is the argument for and against competition - yes, you can get competition but market forces often dictate a small cartel ends up with complete control. Could we forcibly break up EDF, British Gas and the others?
As for water, someone can tell me I'm wrong but you still have no choice - I have Thames Water, even if I thought Severn Trent were better, I couldn't move to Severn Trent to supply my water in London - now water isn't like electricity or gas, I know, it's more liquid for a start, but we don't really have competition and a market for all the claims from some.
https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/07/03/andy-burnham-tax-rises-47bn/
Dan Neidle's outfit but not the small business CGT collection plan they were talking about the other day.
So will Great British Energy, if it comes about, hire the expertise to trade in CfDs and RAB-based contracts. Or more likely civil servants will be taken to the cleaners by the same financial engineers that are profiting now.
(From elsewhere)
"The figure for Total rolling stock expenditure appears to have grown from 73 million in 2015 to 423 million in 2024-25 although about 125 million seems average for earlier years, so 2015-16 be a outlier year for some reason."
It's great that TSE remembered his password
And one ran into the back of another killing the driver.
The usual reason for delays is things outside their control such as someone stealing wires or suicides.
Granted first class isn't as good as in the olden days when the 225 had actual kitchens for cooking for first class but it's still better than most other options.
Why would an "unabashed free marketeer" be against people using cash?
I can see Germany getting something around weapon systems, as the more of those the better plus they are relativeyl detached, and perhaps assembly of a Luftwaffe order, and MBDA has a footprint in Germany - which would make it more straightforward organisationally.
The critical path is aircraft for Japan by 2035 because China.
I'm not sure about Canada, but it could be the type of aircraft that could replace their F35s in their environment.
I have learned this from my job.
*other providers are available, your money is at risk, check T&Cs for more details
No wonder Farage & Trump are pro-crypto.
Part of my job involves dealing with financial crimes and if I wanted to rip off the poor via a Ponzi scheme it would look like crypto.
Far too traceable.
There are much better “coins” for fraud, drug dealing and terrorism.
Buyers remorse ?
https://x.com/i/status/2073068984371429717
Better if the Conservatives had won: 35% (+2 from 4 July 2025)
Better that Labour won: 34% (+1)
Well, that's something...
(One note: take care not to confuse your Hiltons. I think the protagonist is Alistair Hilton, who is claiming the Green Councillor set the police on him and to my eye overegging his pudding a little - it could go legal, with Adrian Hilton, who is in the debate but is I think the former "Archbishop Cranmer" blogger.)
The basic issue is about unlawful obstructions (the pub outdoor tables and chairs) on a public highway - the Thames Path, which here is either a Public Footpath, or an Adopted Highway in the relevant places. Two pubs, as 'landowners', seem to feel that that, and that they have been doing it for some years, means they should be able to continue to do it without a pavement license.
The local Conservative Councillor (and the Telegraph and the Standard and GB News) have weighed in in support of the pubs (and their customers who like sitting on the Thames Path), and it was a Green Councillor who made a report to ask that it be looked at, around accessibility for less mobile pedestrians to Pass and Repass along the Thames Path unobstructed.
Given my penchant for removing obstructions from public highways so mobility aids can use them, it will be clear where I stand - as long as the path is fully accessible (and there are endless technicalities about how wide it is, and what type of highway it is in each place) and easily useable, they can put their tables there provided there is a license and no obstruction. IMO here the clear path should be 4m wide.
The Council Officers were abrupt in their demands for removal, and after a word from the local councillor have now backed down to say "you can keep your tables whilst we thin about it), which is how it should have been in the first place.
The various bits of media are trying to make this about authoritarian Councils and Councillors banning outside drinking (which is afaics a lie, not that that will stop them), and police vs freedom of speech (around Hilton's twitter comments).
This could run and run. My prediction is that the pubs will cathc up to what the law requires, and then the seating will continue with appropriate adjustments.
All the pubs are recommended. I used to go on riverside dates down there.
None of the pubs along there are blocking the path either.
Is the pub in question, I *think*
He’s not unique. We’ve seen councillors of all persuasions use Plod when it suits.
Abuse of power by local politicians is nothing new and should be rejected. Personally I’d blame Plod for,going along with it.
There was an engineer on the train and he was moving up and down the carriages. It had that new train smell and the in-carriage information service only came on at Loughborough.
The configuration has basically a coach and a half of First Class seats - perfectly comfortable and nice to have at-seat charging for every seat which was working fine. Three and a half coaches of Standard - we travelled on the furst day the service resumed fully to London after the Elstow crash and it was busy but I've known it a lot worse.
EMR simply need more carriages which presumably cost a fortune - if they could run 10 car trains on all services it would help.
In the words of Brass Eye, I’m sure the US and warmonger Israelis are ‘ This is the one thing we didn't want to happen.“
There are 3 pubs - the City Barge, the Bell & Crown, and the Bull's Head. The BH had a pavement license anyway, so it is the other two; the BH was dragged in because their license was up for renewal.
We may have slightly differing views on "unobstructed". I want 4m (absolute minimum 3m) as per national guidelines width with either marked edges or "keep the pubbers off the highway" ornamental fencing. But the Definitive Map and Statement may have something to say.
Bitcoin is actually used as a medium of exchange. Much easier to carry than a suitcase of cash.
It's almost like he doesn't believe his own Bitcoin price prognostications.
I ask them what it’s for and what value it gives. They just read some posts on social media and got a kraken account.
Hamilton has just qualified first for the Sprint race...
Now, there is a good case for some government oversight in this market to ensure diversity of supply, because the free market solution today might be -say- 100% natural gas, but that introduces unacceptable risks to total UK electricity production in the case of (say) war in the Middle East. But -by and large- if someone wants to build a power generation plant and to compete to sell electricity to the grid, they should be free to do so.
Where there is less obviously room for competition is in the ownership of the wires that deliver water, gas and electricity to your home. That doesn't mean they need to be publicly owned. But it does mean there is a need for regulation to ensure that services are delivered to standard and at a reasonable rate.
Jumping ahead a few centuries… Was France’s nationalisation of Renault in 1945, as a punishment for their collaboration with the Nazis, a shit idea?
Work really gets in the way of more important things.
There's room for government to be involved in generation, too - limited involvement only though. There is, as you say, no justification for ownership of the system.
Water privatisation was an enormous and costly failed experiment.
There's presumably a fairly strong correlation between the 34% who voted Labour and the 34% who are happy that Labour won.
What there has been, particularly from the Reform-inclined, is lots of anger from the losers of 2024.
Plus, did you notice the Labour DK figure?
Obligatory XKCD - https://xkcd.com/538/
Bit like how BCCI was run for years so that the US intelligence could track who was using it.
The cartelisation and the driving out of the market of most of the smaller cheaper suppliers has been extremely disadvantageous to those wanting fairer prices and proper competition. We need to encourage the smaller suppliers back into the market and that means challenging EDF, British Gas, Scottish & Southern and the other big suppliers and if necessary forcing them to get out of parts of the residential market if they cannot or will no offer power at fair prices.
I appreciate water is more difficult to manage but we see the likes of Thames Water allegedly pumping raw sewage into rivers and you wonder why people get angry. Thirty years and more ago, I campaigned alongside a group called Surfers Against Sewage and one of their number stood as an LD candidate in a Cornwall County Council election (1993 I think) and he thrashed the local Tory incumbent who stood up at a public meeting and tried to tell a sceptical audience how wonderful South West Water were.
MY experience is you can advance all the theories you like about the failures and inadequacies of nationalisation and public ownership but if people see private companies doing no better and charging higher prices you can understand why returning these activities to public ownership will have support.
We have a disease in this country of taking pedestrian space down to the absolute minimum, which makes using footpaths unpleasant when there is a fair amount of foot traffic, and that causes conflict which no one wants. The attitude is nasty, and small minded, and I hate it.
But we have several different recommended widths (Inclusive Mobility, LTN 1/20 and others), depending on volume, transport mode, and purpose. As a matter of principle, the space on a public highway belongs to the public, not to a private business who want to put their stuff on it for their own benefit. Landowners are always trying to do that, and they need to be less selfish. 4m is roughly where it is for a high foot fall environment, and I am making it slightly wider than minimum because using a footpath includes stopping to take in the view, to sit on a bench for a rest, and so on, which I think are common in Strand-on-the-Green.
The required width for a mobility aid to travel safely and comfortably is 1.5m width unobstructed, since the things themselves are up to about 1.0m, sometimes 1.2m, and extra width is required simple eg wheelchairs require width for hands outside to do wheeling. For two way that is 3.0m, minimum. And I don't accept lamp posts, sign posts, pedestrian cages, litter bins, cross pathway advertising hoardings where phone boxes used to be, Horse's f*cking Brobdingnagian phone masts, and all the rest as not being obstructions; they should be off the clear footway - but that is a slightly different tack !
On passing places, I reject the idea out of hand - except for special circumstances such as a pre-existing constraint. We build our normal carriageways for vehicles to be 5.5m width, so two can pass, except where eg we need traffic calming because many drivers cannot control themselves. The principle is precisely the same for footpaths and footways - imo if we think it through, that is a very basic, unarguable implication of Equality Law. Why should we make wheelchair users use passing spaces in everyday travel, when we do not do so for people who are less marginalised, and the facilities for pedestrians cost such little money?
We had an interesting debate the other week about Delivery Robots, which I have been feeding back as "expect serious resistance if you try to prevent these without a very carefully argued case". The association has a new Chairman, who did a very interesting presentation about developing values and a strategy for their centenary, here - provocative, but not especially radical:
https://youtu.be/2ohCmQgUYx0?t=590
But just to focus on the passing places. Let’s say that you have a riverside path that is 5m wide. I’m guessing you need about 2.5m to accommodate a table and two chairs.
But under your approach that is unacceptable in case there is a scenario where two wheelchair users need to pass each other. So the vast majority of people don’t get to enjoy the path.
My approach represents a reasonable accommodation; create a passing place so wheelchairs don’t lose the ability to pass each other, but also enable to space to be shared by others. But apparently that is so unacceptable as to be “rejected out of hand”
https://www.gbnews.com/news/council-row-riverside-drinking-ban-locals-force-labour-council-back-down
Who are the favourites for the World Cup? What are the odds on an England win?
Let's be honest, we all know the answer to the first question in the heading above. Anyone who watched their borderline magical dismantling of Sweden will be in little doubt as to France's status as World Cup favourites.
Yes, their midfield is arguable not among the best in the competition and their defence is certainly not infallible.
But the simple presence of five attacking players in their squad who many count among the top 10 on the planet means that opposing teams will likely have to do something special if they are to overcome Didier Deschamps' side.
Well, the bookies certainly agree, with Polymarket placing their chances of clinching the trophy for a third time at 33%, with SkyBet offering odds of 15/8.
Next is Argentina, with a 19% shot and 4/1 odds, followed by Spain on 13% and 11/2.
Fourth favourites are England, with an estimated 7% chance and odds of 10/1. Brazil are also given a 7% shout, but with odds of 11/1.
Of the remaining viable options, Portugal are at 6%, Mexico (England's next opponents) on 3% along with the USA and Morocco.
Colombia and Norway are given a 2% chance, Belgium and Switzerland both 1%, with the remaining teams all considered to have a less-than-1% prospect of an unlikely triumph.
One of the concerns is that if prices get too high, consumers and businesses simply stop paying. And then all sorts of contracts start to unwind. Think 2008 GFC in micro.