Re-nationalise power

Defending her record in Parliament on the day she resigned in 1990, Thatcher spoke in patriotic tones of how, with millions of people buying shares in former state industries, privatisation was giving ‘power back to the people’, and how competition at home and open markets in Europe would free British enterprise to lead the world. Now, in 2012, it’s clear that the result of electricity privatisation was to take power away from the people. Small British shareholders have no influence over the overwhelmingly non-British owners of the firms that generate and distribute power in Britain. The fact that individual households and small businesses can choose to switch from the confusing tariff of one oligopolistic supplier to another doesn’t protect them from sharp, unpredictable swings in prices. In overseas chanceries the Thatcher doctrine came up against ambitious leaders who were no less patriotic, but not so arrogant and naive. Unlike Thatcher, they didn’t assume that if their country levelled its playing field, others would level theirs. The problem with the ideal of competition is that there are winners and losers. The electricity competition has now been held. It is over, and Britain lost. From the point of view of technology and capital, electric Britain is no longer a centre. It is another centre’s province.

The most unexpected consequence of selling the country’s electric legacy, the consequence that most directly contradicts what the Thatcherites were trying to do, was the gradual absorption of swathes of the industry by EDF. Beginning with the takeover of London Electricity in 1998, exploiting the Thatcherites’ open-door market structures and their decision to split the electricity industry into small, easy-to-swallow chunks, France in effect renationalised the industry its neighbour had so painstakingly privatised. Renationalised it, that is, for France. As well as being one of the six dominant UK suppliers of energy, EDF now owns a fat portfolio of British power stations, including the fleet of nuclear reactors that still provides around a sixth of the country’s electricity.

Read more:

The aristocrats cashing in on Britain’s wind farm subsidies

Growing numbers of the nobility are being tempted to build giant wind farms on their estates by the promise of tens of millions of pounds being offered green energy developers.

They are among the nation’s wealthiest aristocrats, whose families have protected the British landscape for centuries. Until now that is.
For increasing numbers of the nobility – among them dukes and even a cousin of the Queen – are being tempted by tens of millions of pounds offered by developers to build giant wind farms on their estates.

An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph reveals how generous subsidies – that are added to consumer energy bills – are encouraging hereditary landowners to build turbines up to 410ft tall on their land.
With controversy over onshore wind farms growing, the role of the landed establishment in fuelling the ‘scramble for wind’ will alarm opponents.
They claim wind farms are blighting the countryside while failing to deliver a reliable supply of electricity despite the cost.

Latest figures show the amount of electricity generated by UK wind farms actually fell last year because of the lowest average wind speeds this century.

Read more:

Renationalise is the answer!


The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.

7 Responses to “Re-nationalise power”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Utilities and public services should never be sold off to Foreign owned companies as merely to avoid losing “hands-on” local control. Having said that, the methods and performance of govts. previously per-se in handling/controlling these facilities left much to be desired and perhaps even created a decline thus making a sell off inevitable! Maybe what is required is a carefully managed mix of both types of ownership but one which involves the people directly as opposed to being the sole responsibility of politicians or their la kdys. People participation over corporate or govt rule anyday! Reiverdave

  2. Road_Hog says:

    They are being deliberately sold off. As is the RM, it is an EU directive.

    The idea is that all utlities, like energy companies, transport companies (including mail/parcel delivery), telecoms, banking etc. will be done by a few pan European companies.

    This means that sovereign countries will lose countrolof their infrastructure and those corporations will fall under the control of the EU.

    It makes it very difficult for any future political party to pull us out of the EU. You need three things to to be able to stand up as a sovereign country, they are, self sufficiency in food, energy and and armed forces that can protect you.

    Most of our gas and electricty companies are foreign owned, we are going to start sharing our aircraft carries with the French and our forces are constantly being trimmed down. As for food,

    well, in 1984, we were 95% self sufficient for indigenous food, so you may not have been able to have bananas and mangoes, but we could feed ourselves withs apples and potatoes.

    It was down to 72% in 2009, falling at the rate of about 1% each year, so we’re probably at about 68% now.

  3. Anonymous says:

    As another warning of what’s to come we had another mini power cut this morning.

  4. Anonymous says:

    With the price of gas and electric forever going up, this video may be worth a look.
    Heating your home office for 8 pence a day

    Regards JimUK

  5. Anonymous says:

    Wind farms kill tens of eagles every year

    12 Sep 2013

    The research represents one of the first tallies of eagle deaths attributed to the nation’s growing wind energy industry,


  6. Wish13 says:

    Re.Wind Farms: “They claim wind farms are blighting the countryside while failing to deliver a reliable supply of electricity despite the cost.”

    This is only part of the story of wind farms. There is the cost on human health which can be adversely affected by close proximity these wind turbines.

    Then there is the cost to birds and bats – the mortality rates are increasing yearly as more farms go up. Especially when flight or migratory paths are not considered when constructing a facility.

    I used to think these were a good idea – now the truth is becoming more apparent, and it’s not pretty.

    Some relevant articles/references:

    Bird & Bat deaths:

    Human Health:

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.