Nationalise British Gas

The announcement by British Gas that it is putting up its prices by 6% this winter is tantamount to a death sentence for many of the most vulnerable in society, people who already living in poverty will not be able to afford to heat their homes and will perish as a result. The average dual fuel bill for gas and electricity is currently £1,240 a year. A six per cent price rise would add around £80, taking the annual bill for gas and electricity up to £1,320. This is enough to tip the household budgets of the 13 million people currently living in poverty in Britain over the edge, including those pensioners who qualify for the Winter Fuel Payment of between £100-300. The price increase by British Gas, the nation’s biggest energy supplier, will directly effect 8.5 million households across the country.

This is nothing less than blatant profiteering, a crime which cuts to the heart of the barbaric state of British society in the 21st century, one that Charles Dickens, chronicler of Victorian era poverty, would immediately recognise. Moreover, it is the consequence of allowing sociopaths to control the levers of power and the nation’s economy.

Today we have a government actively engaged in carrying out a vast exercise in human despair as an economic policy, alongside boardrooms which care not one iota for the human or social impact of the decisions they make to benefit themselves and their shareholders.

In the specific case of British Gas, which along with the other energy providers enjoy the benefits of an in-built monopoly over energy prices and profits in what is a de facto cartel; this is a company that made £345 million in the first half of 2012, a 23% increase. With the other energy providers certain to follow suit, customers have no choice or recourse to an alternative, especially those on pre-payment meters.

The Managing Director of British Gas, Phil Bentley (pictured), was paid £1.249 million in 2010, with a £596,000 bonus, up 15% from the previous year. In the same year British Gas made an operating profit of £598 million, an increase of 100%. It’s a fair bet that Mr Bentley’s parents or elderly relatives will not suffer the impact of the price increase he’s just announced.

In 2009 a commission set up by the then Labour government found that 7.8 million people in the UK could not afford to heat their homes and predicted it would rise to 8.5 million by 2016. This means that fuel poverty in Britain has reached the level of a national crisis.

With the industry regulator, Ofgem, proving completely unsuited to the task of protecting consumers from the rapacious greed of British Gas and its parent company Centrica for exorbitant profits, it is high time the company was taken back into public ownership. Its privatisation under Thatcher’s government in 1986 has proved a disaster for millions of people who’ve been held hostage by this greed in the three decades since, reflective of the untrammelled capitalism that has plunged the global economy into freefall in recent years.

More widely, at a time when a vicious Tory government is intent on continuing Thatcher’s war on the unions, and with a Labour Party that is yet to completely throw off the yoke of Blairism, the poor and vulnerable in society are in desperate need of a firewall to protect them from the blind economic forces responsible for decisions such as the one just made by British Gas.

We have already seen a glimpse of the consequence of this lack of protection with the London riots that exploded last summer. Cutting benefits, wages, jobs, while raising prices and making survival an impossible task for millions of people is an equation that will inevitably lead to another social explosion. Indeed, it is almost as if they are inviting one.

At this rate they won’t be disappointed.

42 comments on “Nationalise British Gas

  1. Not just British Gas, but all the other providers as well. Nationalise and merge into a single co-operatively run, not-for- profit body under the control of workers and consumers. And compensation only in cases of proven need, i.e. if there are any of the suckers left who fell for the ‘tell Sid’ nonsense, then perhaps there might be a case. For the rest – no chance.

  2. To say that “Phil Bentley (pictured), earned £1.249 million in 2010” is wrong. He may have been paid that much but it’s wrong to say that he “earned it”.

    Any decent society should have a wages system where the highest paid wage is a multiple of the lowest paid, and that multiple should peak at less than 20 times. It may be one times if total economic egalitarianism is the aim.

  3. Neil: To say that “Phil Bentley (pictured), earned £1.249 million in 2010″ is wrong. He may have been paid that much but it’s wrong to say that he “earned it”.

    I take your point, though I do think you’re being a bit pedantic. The words ‘paid’ and ‘earned’ are more or less interchangeable nowadays, but there is an important distinction to be made between the two when it comes to their literal definition.

  4. The thing is most people would welcome the renationalisation of Gas, Electric, Water and Transport. A genuinely popular set of policies that would win elections.

    Yet there are no takers.

  5. robert p. williams on said:

    Yes, but we have to get rid of the top-down capitalist management structure too. It should be run democratically: by and in the interest of its workers and the general public.
    The energy companies really have things stitched up to the detriment of the ordinary person in the street.

  6. Jimmy Haddow on said:

    Post 4; you will certainly not get any takers from the Labour Party for the renationalisation of the Utilities but the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition does have that policy:
    “PUBLIC OWNERSHIP, NOT PRIVATISED PROFIT
    “Stop all privatisation, including the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and Public-Private Partnerships (PPP), and the immoral privatisation of prisons. Bring privatised public services and utilities back into public ownership under democratic control.”

    As well as believing in the need: “For a democratic socialist society run in the interests of the people not the millionaires. For democratic public ownership of the major companies and banks that dominate the economy, so that production and services can be planned to meet the needs of all and to protect the environment” which is something the Labour Party today does not comprehend.

    http://www.tusc.org.uk/policy.php

  7. Karl Stewart on said:

    JimmyH, I’m sorry, but this is factually incorrect: “You will certainly not get any takers from the Labour Party for the renationalisation of the Utilities…”

    There are nearly 200,000 individual Labour Party members and several million LP-affiliated trade unionists.

    Out of this total, I reckon there are many, many times more supporters of utility nationalisation than there are members of your party.

  8. The relevant question is not whether this demand is supported by this or that faction or coalition thereof of the far left but the extent to which a mass campaign can be mobilised to pursuade or force an actual government to carry it out, and/or whether the prevailing economic conditions mean that they have no choice but to do so.

    If we have to rely on the people who currently vote for the combined forces of the left (even including those who can get people elected) we can forget it.

    So Jimmy, I’d be very surprised if TUSC didn’t support this policy, but that doesn’t take us very far unless you actually have a credible strategy for doing something about it, as opposed to making propaganda against the Labour Party, in which case I’d be very interested to know what it is.

  9. Jimmy Haddow on said:

    I am with Omar on this neither the Labour Party leadership or Labour Party policy is for the renationalisation of the Utilities. It is irrelevant to suggest that the honest socialist class consciousness of individuals in the Labour Party has any control over the neo-liberal capitalist Labour Party and/or its leadership. The Labour Party will not change its neo-liberal policy unless there is a revolutionary social cataclysmic transformation in society and millions of trade unionists and workers actively become involved in the Labour Party to change it. So in the meantime it is better to build the foundations of a new workers’ party which at the moment is TUSC and steer the active trade unionists towards that conclusion.

  10. jack ford on said:

    If the left wants to get anything done in the real world there is no alternative but to join the Labour Party and fight to defeat the Blairite Progress cabal which presently have a grip on the party machine. This will be a uphill battle and very dispiriting at times but that’s where the action is.

  11. robert p. williams on said:

    I think Jimmy is right to point out that you need a political party that can promote and support the policy of nationalisation.
    To say that there are some people in the labour party that support it means little… you could just as easily say some people down Tesco’s or the local football ground support it…. we need a mass political party that will LEAD the fight on this and many other issues.

    The question is whether the Labour party can be that party… a party that can attract and channel the most conscious layer of workers and trade unionists? A party may have lots of members, they may even get more members, but are those new members going to transform the party?

    I think not… there has been a degeneration of consciousness across the world that has intensified since the fall of the Soviet Union.

    The Capitalist wing of the Labour Party took advantage of that situation to carry out a historical change, consolidating their control in the party and pull up the constitutional and democratic drawbridge, so making it very difficult for the Labour Party to come back under the sway of conscious trade unionists.

    Nothing is ever ‘impossible’… and those who think that the LP can be won over or ‘reclaimed’ … good luck to them! If by chance they succeeded then I would be happy to join them… I salute your efforts.
    But I don’t think they will manage it. We can’t just sit waiting for the capitalist class to stamp all over everything we have fought for.

    I agree with Jimmy that the difficult task of building a party that can attract the most conscious trade unionists and workers, a step towards building a new mass party for the working class is what needs to happen.

    Of course, the working class who have no alternative will reluctantly vote labour and likely they’ll get re-elected at some point… maybe their membership will increase…. But that will NOT change the direction of the LP. As Jimmy said, only the mass influx of thousands upon thousands of new LP members demanding CHANGE would have any hope of changing the LP. It’s not happening.

    Those layer’s of the most conscious and militant trade unionists and activists show little enthusiasm or hope in the Labour Party… They are the only ones who could actually understand and articulate the change and the kind of policies that are needed and raise the level of consciousness among workers…. They are not being drawn into the Labour Party.

    Therefore we need to do something different. It won’t be easy but if one route is blocked, we must find another.

    Why not come to ‘Socialism 2012’ and debate the issue further?
    http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/events/Socialism_2012/Socialism_2012

  12. Only a government will nationalise the gas industry, and there is ZERO chance of any party of the left taking government power at the moment- that hasn’t even been achieved in Greece yet ffs.

    So if this is worth arguing for it’s about mobilising people to demand that (a) the Labour Party do it if they win the next election, and (b) that this government do it now.

    Let’s not forget that the Heath government nationalised Rolls Royce and Brown partially nationalised the banks.

    There are good economic arguments which have little to do with socialism per se for nationalisation, not least the question of government revenue.

    Sowing illusions? A likely story? A joke?

    Maybe, but here’s another one- the next TUSC government do it (or the next Respect government for that matter).

    And a party is not required to mobilise such a campaign a party is not needed. A party is for fighting elections, forming a government and taking power.

  13. Btw I just read John’s post out to my wife who’s driving and we were both impressed with how it reads/ sounds.

    And that’s not because we’re both lefties but because it’s crystal clear that so many people will agree with this.

    Also you do write well John, particularly when you’re having a go at the right people.

  14. jack ford,

    Again,no one is doubting the conviction of many rank and file Labour members. The question is , why do these wishes rarely translate into concrete policies espoused by the Labour leadership?

  15. robert p. williams:
    I think Jimmy is right to point out that you need a political party that can promote and support the policy of nationalisation.
    To say that there are some people in the labour party that support it means little… you could just as easily say some people down Tesco’s or the local football ground support it…. we need a mass political party that will LEAD the fight on this and many other issues.

    The question is whether the Labour party can be that party… a party that can attract and channel the most conscious layer of workers and trade unionists? A party may have lots of members, they may even get more members, but are those new members going to transform the party?

    I think not… there has been a degeneration of consciousness across the world that has intensified since the fall of the Soviet Union.

    The Capitalist wing of the Labour Party took advantage of that situation to carry out a historical change, consolidating their control in the party and pull up the constitutional and democratic drawbridge, so making it very difficult for the Labour Party to come back under the sway of conscious trade unionists.

    Nothing is ever ‘impossible’… and those who think that the LP can be won over or ‘reclaimed’ … good luck to them! If by chance they succeeded then I would be happy to join them… I salute your efforts.
    But I don’t think they will manage it. We can’t just sit waiting for the capitalist class to stamp all over everything we have fought for.

    I agree with Jimmy that the difficult task of building a party that can attract the most conscious trade unionists and workers, a step towards building a new mass party for the working class is what needs to happen.

    Of course, the working class who have no alternative will reluctantly vote labour and likely they’ll get re-elected at some point… maybe their membership will increase…. But that will NOT change the direction of the LP. As Jimmy said, only the mass influx of thousands upon thousands of new LP members demanding CHANGE would have any hope of changing the LP. It’s not happening.

    Those layer’s of the most conscious and militant trade unionists and activists show little enthusiasm or hope in the Labour Party… They are the only ones who could actually understand and articulate the change and the kind of policies that are needed and raise the level of consciousness among workers…. They are not being drawn into the Labour Party.

    Therefore we need to do something different. It won’t be easy but if one route is blocked, we must find another.

    Why not come to ‘Socialism 2012′ and debate the issue further?
    http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/events/Socialism_2012/Socialism_2012

    Because of comment 14 by Vanya. You have your conference Robert and let us know how you get on. Meanwhile in the real world………

  16. It seems to me that insisting that a only a ‘new workers party’ can carry out the socialisation of the privatised energy industry is putting the cart before the horse. It is also implicitly reformist insofar as long as we are not talking in some immediate sense about establishing a proletarian dictatorship. The government implied is therefore a fairly traditional, if left-wing, parliamentary reformist government. Which is something that has been tried and found wanting many times in the 20th century. Which is possibly why it does not inspire many people these days.

    In this context, the approach of demanding what is necessary and seeking to force it on whichever government is in power through an accelerating campaign of mass agitation and action actually seems more realistic. Its also the kind of method, if it were to catch on, could point to the emergence of something much more radical than an old style reformist ‘workers party’.

    That approach has a lot in common with the idea of ‘transitional demands’.

  17. Karl Stewart on said:

    RedS and Vanya are right here.

    Our SP comrades seem to be arguing here that the creation of a new, separate, “Labour Party Mark II” is a pre-requisite to building an effective campaign against privatisation and for the re-nationalisation of our essential utilities.

    If this is what they’re arguing, then that’s clearly nonsense. There are numerous examples of asuch campaigns, both past and present, and both successful and unsuccessful.

    It’s actually an unintentionally defeatist argument on their part, as the reality is there is no “Labour Party Mark II” in existence, and there is absolutely zero chance of such a party being formed.

    But yes, of course there is an urgent need for a renewal of efforts against privatisation and for re-nationalisation. And we have many avenues through which to pursue this agenda.

    These include our trade unions, the political party that our unions are affiliated to (the actually existing Labour Party, rather than the fantasy “Labour Party Mark II” which will never exist), and the various smaller left, socialist and communist parties that some of us belong to and/or support, and the host of local campaigns that exist here and now.

    In the process of pursuing these different campaigns, we can also. Strive for, and win support for an alternative economic and political consensus for public ownership.

  18. #19 ‘That approach has a lot in common with the idea of ‘transitional demands’.’

    I hope you’re not calling me a trot 🙂

    #19 + 20 I think the idea that a new party could grow out of a mass struggle makes sense.

    After all, the best and most successful attempt so far in recent times came out of the mass anti-war movement.

    However, if Britain is to follow the pattern of other countries in Europe (eg France, Germany, Greece) such a party will requi(re (a) significant split(s) in the Labour Party.

  19. George Hallam on said:

    Red S: In this context, the approach of demanding what is necessary and seeking to force it on whichever government is in power through an accelerating campaign of mass agitation and action actually seems more realistic. Its also the kind of method, if it were to catch on, could point to the emergence of something much more radical than an old style reformist ‘workers party’.

    For a real life example see:
    http://www.peoplebeforeprofit.org.uk/

    Of course, Lewisham People Before Profit is not a “Left” organisation: it actually does things.

  20. Does anyone here understand how the ‘inflation rate’ is worked out? I genuinely do not understand how it can be so low when food prices appear to be constantly rising, as do utility bills, as do ‘public’ transport costs, as do rents.

    What am I missing? Am I consuming the wrong basket of commodities?

  21. Karl Stewart on said:

    The RPI and CPI figures are compiled by the Government’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the stats released each month are a rolling annual average of the preceding 12 months.

    Usually the RPI figure is higher (a recent exception was during 2009) and my understanding is that this is because various housing ownership costs are excluded from the CPI rate.

    The CPI rate is a relatively newer system than RPI and my understanding is that the original reason for introducing the CPI rate was to have an inflation measure in place that was easily comparable across the EU and that the widely differing levels of home ownership across EU nations meant that RPI did not adequately serve this purpose.

  22. George Hallam on said:

    Karl Stewart: Usually the RPI figure is higher (a recent exception was during 2009) and my understanding is that this is because various housing ownership costs are excluded from the CPI rate.

    Yes,the CPI excludes a number of items relating to housing costs (such as mortgage interest payments, house depreciation and council tax) that are included in the RPI.

    The RPIX also excludes mortgage interest payments. The RPIY excludes mortgage interest payments and indirect taxation.

    The raw data is the very much the same for the RPIX, RPIY and CPU indices. However the CPI is yield systematically lower numbers than the RPIX and RPIY.

    This is because a different the method is used to make the calculation.

    The official line is that this systematically lower inflation rate is a feature not a bug bcause :
    “.. it can better reflect changes in consumer spending patterns relative to changes in the price of goods and services.”

  23. George Hallam on said:

    A Non: What am I missing? Am I consuming the wrong basket of commodities?

    Yes. The official line is that you need to change your spending pattern. Switch to cheaper goods.

  24. George Hallam on said:

    Vanya: #25 Now there’s a surprise
    I think you should apply to join the Eggheads.

    And still they gazed,and still the wonder grew, that one small head could carry all he knew.

  25. Timely article and good comments (excluding Hallam).

    This highlights the idea that a ‘successful’ capitalist is simply an effective robbing bastard, while an unsuccessful capitalist is a robbing bastard who could do better. The news media have been telling us tha the successful capitalist’s deserve their multi million bonuses, we should highlight this means rewarding effective criminals. Anti social pychos literally killing people with full knowledge. It’s muder 1, bring back capital punishment, bring back the birch!

    The call to nationalise is the correct one, the public support this and all sectors that serve such a pivotal role require public ownership.

  26. George Hallam on said:

    Marko: Timely article and good comments (excluding Hallam).

    Blaming the messenger because you don’t like the message is one thing.

    Disparaging the message because you don’t happen to like the messenger; that takes things to new level.

  27. Jimmy Haddow on said:

    post 31 pot and kettle here, nevertheless, I believe, the message was not considered good by the contributor because it is/was a different interpretation. That is what the nature of discussion is all about. However, what comes over from you is your right and everyone else is wrong. That is some high ivory tower you live in, so high that I doubt you come down to the non-Left Lewisham People Before Profit group to actually do something in it. You would rather make some Archaic statements to show how Erudite you are then tell how every one how they are stupid, as you have done on other posts!

  28. George Hallam on said:

    Jimmy Haddow: That is some high ivory tower you live in,

    Sticks and stones.

    This stuff is actually important to ordinary people.

    “The RPI is the most long standing general purpose domestic measure of inflation in the United Kingdom. It is available continuously from June 1947.
    The uses of the RPI and its derivatives include the indexation of index-linked gilts.
    Historically the RPI has also been used for the indexation of pensions and state benefits.”
    (ONS Quick Guide to the Inflation Rate)

    “The Government’s stated policy is to use CPI for the indexation of benefits, tax credits and public service pensions.” (Miller 2011: 1 point 1.2)

    “On average in 2011, the differential between RPIX and CPI inflation has been around 0.9 percentage points and 0.8 percentage points between RPI and CPI inflation.”
    (Miller 2011: 1 point 1.3)

    “Authorities try to sell inflation index shake-up that will slash returns on NS&I bonds and hit private pensions”

    This is Money 8th October 2012 http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2214530/ONS-asks-views-trim-RPI-inflation-hit-pensions-slash-returns-NS-I-bonds.html#ixzz29CjezBVc

    It will also hit wages, state pensions and benefits.
    (Call me a cynic if you like, but I suspect that this is the main purpose of the exercise.)

    References:

    ONS Quick Guide to the Inflation Rate http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/user-guidance/prices/cpi-and-rpi/quick-guide—inflation.pdf)

    Miller, Ruth (2011) ‘The long-run difference between RPI and CPI inflation Working paper’ No. 2 November, Office for Budget Responsibility
    http://cdn.budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/Working-paper-No2-The-long-run-difference-between-RPI-and-CPI-inflation.pdf

  29. #32 Well said Jimmy. There’s nothing worse than some pompous smug, self satisfied old git telling everyone else that he’s right and they’re wrong (I’m 50 next year btw).

  30. Btw has anyone been watching this documentary series on BBC2 about domestic servants?

    Absolutely brilliant.

  31. George Hallam on said:

    Jimmy Haddow: You would rather make some Archaic statements to show how Erudite you are then tell how every one how they are stupid, as you have done on other posts!

    Where did I say that people on this site are stupid? I though I had managed to avoid using that term.

    For the record I think that the British Left has a strong tendency to be, in no particular order, misinformed, intellectually lazy and self-righteous. I think there have been some examples in posts made to this site.

    Unfortunately, these characteristics are mutually reinforcing.

  32. George Hallam on said:

    Vanya: There’s nothing worse than some pompous smug, self satisfied old git telling everyone else that he’s right and they’re wrong

    There are lot of bad things in this world. Being told that you are wrong by someone who is pompous, smug etc. is not the worse that can happen.

    (Especially if you ARE, in fact, wrong.)

  33. Karl Stewart on said:

    Well said JimmyH at (32).

    Andy, can you re-open that other thread for GeorgeH? Or start a new one about tanks for him?

  34. I would like to have a contest to select pompous smug self satisfied old git of the year.

    I would insist on Jimmy H and George H both entering, together with myself.

    I would be at a disadvantage purely because of my laziness.

    #40 Karl have more respect for your elders.

    George H why did it take so long for the USSR to allow US planes to use Soviet territory to supply Warsaw?