Give us a fracking break!
Discussion
JimPetrol said:
They tried and failed to sell of a load of government owned forestry, they're selling the Royal Mail, and have plans to sell blood plasma services - which is disgraceful.
All main parties only care about their own careers and personal gain - I don't believe many in parliament are there for the good of the country.
So none of the drilling licenses have been sold off on the cheap? Thank you.All main parties only care about their own careers and personal gain - I don't believe many in parliament are there for the good of the country.
I'll agree that most are in it for themselves tho.
People get jobs, government get most of its money from Income Tax, NI and VAT, therefore government gets more money and spends less money. Some of the poorest areas of the UK are suddenly going to get loads of Jobs, and good Jobs too.
Shale gas is looking set to be a miracle cure to loads of the UK's problems. I hope it really works out and can't give a stuff if tax breaks are what makes it happen faster.
Shale gas is looking set to be a miracle cure to loads of the UK's problems. I hope it really works out and can't give a stuff if tax breaks are what makes it happen faster.
London424 said:
But they aren't selling it off. The government are just saying they will be taxed less than the current 62%.
So it is some kind of ponzi scheme after all. The government, with this one action, has shown it's total disregard for the financial burden placed on the UK consumer by the energy cartel.
Art0ir said:
If you honestly think the public has been screwed on this one, you should take a look at Ireland's position.
Well, Yes you are correct over the Irish situation. I will withdraw my remarks when low cost frakked gas leads to the cartel offering a price reduction to consumers of the same magnitude as the tax reduction they have recieved.
Okay?
<flyingpigsmiley>
JimPetrol said:
They tried and failed to sell of a load of government owned forestry, they're selling the Royal Mail, and have plans to sell blood plasma services - which is disgraceful.
All main parties only care about their own careers and personal gain - I don't believe many in parliament are there for the good of the country.
Why disgraceful?All main parties only care about their own careers and personal gain - I don't believe many in parliament are there for the good of the country.
All three examples you highlight are run commercially (the forestry for sale were the large timber production forests). Why should the government be in the business of running them?
Especially when it is unwilling to make the investment in new facilities and new products while letting politics interfere?
Plasma Resources UK, for example, makes 50% of its revenue from international exports. It operates in a highly competitive market, with over the half the NHS buying from other suppliers. It has a old factory that needs replacement and which hardly runs anywhere near full capacity.
Royal Mail needs full commercial freedom to expand internationally to fund the universal service at home.
ninja-lewis said:
JimPetrol said:
They tried and failed to sell of a load of government owned forestry, they're selling the Royal Mail, and have plans to sell blood plasma services - which is disgraceful.
All main parties only care about their own careers and personal gain - I don't believe many in parliament are there for the good of the country.
Why disgraceful?All main parties only care about their own careers and personal gain - I don't believe many in parliament are there for the good of the country.
All three examples you highlight are run commercially (the forestry for sale were the large timber production forests). Why should the government be in the business of running them?
Especially when it is unwilling to make the investment in new facilities and new products while letting politics interfere?
Plasma Resources UK, for example, makes 50% of its revenue from international exports. It operates in a highly competitive market, with over the half the NHS buying from other suppliers. It has a old factory that needs replacement and which hardly runs anywhere near full capacity.
Royal Mail needs full commercial freedom to expand internationally to fund the universal service at home.
Royal Mail could fund it anyway without privatisation!
Its operating profits for the 52 weeks to the end of March this year jumped to £403m.
That's UP OVER DOUBLE from £152m for the previous year.
Its core UK parcels and letters unit had an operating profit of £294m
That's UP 'MASSIVELY' from the £33m for the previous year.
'The transformation of Royal Mail is well underway' says the Royal Mail chief executive, Canadian Moya Greene.
What she really meant was Royal Mail is now ripe for privatisation.
As for blood plasma, I agree with JimPetrol when he says this one is disgraceful.
Plasma supplies have a long record of being operated on a non-profit basis here, using voluntary donors where all the necessary checks take place.
The difference with now being privatised is that they will want as many donors as possible and be looking to secure large profits first and foremost, just like the US. If you give blood it's probably not far down the line now that the same will happen here, you'll be offered a money donation each time, and all and sundry will be giving blood. Statistics down the line will probably be along the lines of 'fantastic increases in those giving blood' propaganda against 'large increases in contaminated blood'.
dandarez said:
Rubbish to that last sentence.
Royal Mail could fund it anyway without privatisation!
Its operating profits for the 52 weeks to the end of March this year jumped to £403m.
That's UP OVER DOUBLE from £152m for the previous year.
Its core UK parcels and letters unit had an operating profit of £294m
That's UP 'MASSIVELY' from the £33m for the previous year.
'The transformation of Royal Mail is well underway' says the Royal Mail chief executive, Canadian Moya Greene.
What she really meant was Royal Mail is now ripe for privatisation.[quote] Royal Mail cannot fund its long term strategy without access to external capital. No government will ever allocate money to Royal Mail ahead of schools and hospitals. Nor can capital markets be accessed as long as it remains in public ownership.
The profits of recent years mask the continuing structural change in the mail market, as letter volumes fall and the parcel sector grows more slowly.
Royal Mail has suffered terribly under successive post-war governments. Only by freeing the business from the grasp of politicians will it secure its long term future and that of the universal service.
[quote]As for blood plasma, I agree with JimPetrol when he says this one is disgraceful.
Plasma supplies have a long record of being operated on a non-profit basis here, using voluntary donors where all the necessary checks take place.
The difference with now being privatised is that they will want as many donors as possible and be looking to secure large profits first and foremost, just like the US. If you give blood it's probably not far down the line now that the same will happen here, you'll be offered a money donation each time, and all and sundry will be giving blood. Statistics down the line will probably be along the lines of 'fantastic increases in those giving blood' propaganda against 'large increases in contaminated blood'.
Plasma Resources UK has nothing whatsoever to do with UK voluntary donations. When the NHS collects blood in the UK, it has to throw away the plasma because of the risk of contamination by vCJD (Mad Cow disease). Instead plasma is sourced by Plasma Resources UK though its US arm DCI Biologicals Inc (which it bought out in 2004), who pay Americans $25 for donating plasma (not full blood donation). Royal Mail could fund it anyway without privatisation!
Its operating profits for the 52 weeks to the end of March this year jumped to £403m.
That's UP OVER DOUBLE from £152m for the previous year.
Its core UK parcels and letters unit had an operating profit of £294m
That's UP 'MASSIVELY' from the £33m for the previous year.
'The transformation of Royal Mail is well underway' says the Royal Mail chief executive, Canadian Moya Greene.
What she really meant was Royal Mail is now ripe for privatisation.[quote] Royal Mail cannot fund its long term strategy without access to external capital. No government will ever allocate money to Royal Mail ahead of schools and hospitals. Nor can capital markets be accessed as long as it remains in public ownership.
The profits of recent years mask the continuing structural change in the mail market, as letter volumes fall and the parcel sector grows more slowly.
Royal Mail has suffered terribly under successive post-war governments. Only by freeing the business from the grasp of politicians will it secure its long term future and that of the universal service.
[quote]As for blood plasma, I agree with JimPetrol when he says this one is disgraceful.
Plasma supplies have a long record of being operated on a non-profit basis here, using voluntary donors where all the necessary checks take place.
The difference with now being privatised is that they will want as many donors as possible and be looking to secure large profits first and foremost, just like the US. If you give blood it's probably not far down the line now that the same will happen here, you'll be offered a money donation each time, and all and sundry will be giving blood. Statistics down the line will probably be along the lines of 'fantastic increases in those giving blood' propaganda against 'large increases in contaminated blood'.
The raw plasma is then supplied to PRUK's other arm, Bio Products Laboratory in the UK, to manufacture various blood products. These are sold on a commercial basis to the NHS and export customers at market prices just like their other international competitors - if the price goes up or quality falls then customers, including NHS hospitals, simply go elsewhere.
The problem for BPL is that it's financially unviable at present. Where other competitors make a profit at the current market price, BPL is running at a loss. Largely because it has an old, under-utilised factory that it is unable to make new generations of products that coming through.
BPL's current strategy (in the public sector) is to try to increase international exports (already 50% of revenues) to make more use of its factory capacity but that strategy by itself will not generate returns quickly enough to fund much needed modern facilities. While it was part of the NHS, the NHS had no interest in providing the necessary investment - because hospitals would rather buy from other suppliers, keep the money for themselves and let BPL wither away.
Whereas the proposed sale to Bain Capital gives the Government £200 million for an 80% stake, eliminates subsidies and injects over £50 million capital into the business for investing in facilities, research and sales.
Guam said:
You see another one putting facts ahead of a good rant
How dare you stop political idealogues having an emotive rant with your factual analysis you should be ashamed
It also is a very skewed viewpoint, depending on which side of the privatisation fence you sit.How dare you stop political idealogues having an emotive rant with your factual analysis you should be ashamed
It's a complex issue and not clear cut either way - but the ultimate result is that the NHS is now relying on a company run by Mitt Romney to supply plasma. How is that in any way a positive result?
mondeoman said:
DJRC said:
As an aside are sny of the current fracking companies trading on the stick market? I dont mean Shell and BP etc but the smaller chaps.
That's just what I was wondering...Tought this was interesting reading.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/...
London424 said:
I think Caudrilla are the main company in the picture at the moment.
Tought this was interesting reading.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/...
A good article although most of the comments seem to be typical Guardian reader.Tought this was interesting reading.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/...
An interesting post on Bishop Hill about the impact of gas wells on the landscape in comparison with wind turbines.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/7/21/energy-i...
Prawnboy said:
start up costs or not, if gas is running low and a gas company wants more they will exploit this new source. Tax breaks will just reduce income for the country, (which we may need for post earthquake clear-up).
Really short sighted move by the government hoping to speed up the start of this industry before the next election.
short termism as per.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.Really short sighted move by the government hoping to speed up the start of this industry before the next election.
short termism as per.
No wonder the Green Party and associated luddites get such a voice, with such a captive audience of easily fed idiots to proclaim to.
Amazing how so few posters here haven't heard of the word 'incentive'. Or, as a few have noted, how un-level the energy playing field currently is - that's from subsidies by the way, not earthquakes.
Edited by AnonSpoilSport on Sunday 21st July 23:20
McWigglebum4th said:
Art0ir said:
The first sensible policy ref: energy I've seen in this government!
Its worryingthey are bound to screw it up somewhere
stevejh said:
London424 said:
I think Caudrilla are the main company in the picture at the moment.
Tought this was interesting reading.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/...
A good article although most of the comments seem to be typical Guardian reader.Tought this was interesting reading.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/...
An interesting post on Bishop Hill about the impact of gas wells on the landscape in comparison with wind turbines.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/7/21/energy-i...
Now, can we answer the bloody question...can we buy shares in any of these bds or not? I dont want cheaper energy or reduced bills or whatever...I want to make some fking money out of them! If this country stopped getting its frigging knickers in a twist about energy bills that increased a whole £20 a month over the last 5 yrs and instead concentrated on trying to make some sodding money out of an industry where the rewards means you could be making thousands a yr as a shareholder we might, just might, maybe GET OURSELVES OUT OF THE PISSING st!
So, can I buy shares in Cuadrilla or any of the other bds or not?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff