We’re wrapping up - thanks for all your questions, and to Aditya for answering them
Updated
"Thatcher and Blair sold the British public a future based on creativity and knowledge, without really understanding what that was meant to look or how we'd get there."
Alexander DeHavilland asks:
Are the British public, and the Tata Steel workers here in Motherwell right to feel they have been sold out by the UK government today?
Guardian staff Thatcher and Blair sold the British public a future based on creativity and knowledge. without really understanding what that was meant to look or how we'd get there. The knowledge economy, the creative classes and all that. To say Britain hasn't worked out like that is an understatement.
Updated
"The Tories have a very tightly bounded definition of the nation"
lastcosmonaut asks:
Why do you think areas such as the UK skills-base, or ownership of key services, industries & companies fall outside the Tory definition of ‘sovereignty?
Guardian staff Interesting. The Tories have a very tightly bounded definition of the nation: no 'extremists', ethnic minorities as long as there are no doubts over their national allegiances, less unions, a more quiescent workforce. And then at the top: plum roles for non-doms and giveaways to footloose capital.
Funny kind of patriotism.
"Who owns the robots?"
Noel_Doyle asks:
What are your thoughts on Fully automated luxury communism? I.e using the increasing automation of work and a basic income to free people from work, instead of under capitalism condemning people to unemployment and poverty.
Guardian staff One of Clinton's economic advisors, Laura Tyson, recently said that when it came to automation of work the key question is "Who owns the robots?"
It's a good question that deserves a longer answer, but that's where i'd start it.
"I am less bothered by the nationality of the purchasers, and more by the rotten terms of the deal"
Lluxate77 asks:
Why do you that the political argument has not been made against selling off our national assets to foreign governments? To my mind it seems like an open goal.
Guardian staff Excellent question. I think largely because the Labour or Blair and Brown were just as happy to go along with it as the Tories are now. To be clear: I am less bothered by the nationality of the purchasers, and more by the rotten terms of the deal, the farce of privatisation and the running down of our skills base and supply chain.
Updated
ClassicRando asks:
The strike price for electricity from these new reactors is very high, do the contracts include minimum quantities of electricity to be purchased? If another cheaper, cleaner source of electricity was found after this was built, undercutting nuclear electricity, would we still be contractually obliged to purchase from the nuclear operator? What do the UK funding guarantees cover - just the construction of the nuclear plant or also the on-going profitablility in the production of electricity by the operator?
Guardian staff The strike price is a fixed guaranteed price that might be adjusted a little downwards depending on the Sizewell deal and that is set to rise in line with inflation. We should learn more on the terms this week.
BienH asks:
If there is any risk that no new nuclear power station is on stream well before 2023, is there a penalty clause? Is it not better to boost the subsidy for a quick build-up of the renewables capacity rathr than cutting it, in addition to more HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current) connections to th continent. In our view that would be a better way of ensuring that ‘the lights stay on’?
The delays at Flamanville and Olkiluoto don’t exacly inspire any confidence!
Guardian staff Good point on France and Finland - massive cost overruns and delays in both cases.
Northern Powerhouse?
smublidonggg asks:
Why is Osborne very willing to purchase in bulk steel from China for this ‘’infrastructure’’ projects e.g. HS2 needs 0.8 million tonnes, and yet he won’t purchase UK steel? If he gave the contracts to UK based steel firms, he would support this industry and this would have a multiplier effect on the communities around those industries, the workers, supporting businesses and the UK economy.
Guardian staff Thanks for a really good point. Osborne might take a look at Preston, where the council and other local institutions are working on doing more local procurement and keeping more spending local. Go, Northern Powerhouse!
Updated
ClassicRando asks:
You state above that the UK hasnt benfitted from competition in the Energy sector and yet our domestic electricity prices are below the EU average, including coutries with higher state influence and ownership of utilities - Do you have any evidence things wouldve been cheaper if we had kept these nationalised?
Also you mention the need to remove the £93B of corporate subsidies in a lot of your articles - do you approve of the Governments decision to not support the failing Steelworks being reported with this corporate welfare?
Guardian staff Thanks for this. Remember that privatisation was meant to reduce bills. The last figures i saw showed we were paying less for our electricity than Germany but more than France -- we were smack bang on the European average,. That will obviously rise with the extravagant costs for Hinkley etc going on our bills.
My argument about corporate welfare isn't that we should get rid of them all -- that's neither desirable nor realistic. But why are we giving millions to tax-avoiding Amazon?
A slightly Smash Hits-esque question from scarus1964:
How do you keep hold of your positivity and sense of humour? Where does your inner strength come from?
Guardian staff Thank you for recognising these qualities, even when some of my closest friends don't. The answer is that I listen to this every morning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvPYXHM94DQ
“Who should we protest? Cameron and Osborne for pressing ahead with such a stupid deal”
RedTuyll asks:
I read your article with interest and am grateful that you highlight this continual undermining of British infrastructure. What is not clear to me is beyond EDF or the Chinese government who is actually gaining from these deals? Protest is more effective if we have a target - we can hardly blame EDF or China for taking advantage of outrageously beneficial terms so the question is who in the UK benefits from giving them these terms?
Guardian staff Thank you for a very good question. I agree: EDF and China are simply playing the ball we've kicked their way. Who should we protest? Cameron and Osborne for pressing ahead with such a stupid deal (which is almost a foreign-state version of PFI) and Thatcher (Gawd bless 'er) and Major for flogging us such a lie.
Updated
robedinburgh asks:
Do we have an idea of how much cheaper it would be for the government to build and directly operate Hinkley point c given low borrowing rates?
Guardian staff An IPPR report on just this subject is here! http://www.ippr.org/publications/when-the-levy-breaks-energy-bills-green-levies-and-a-fairer-low-carbon-transition
This bit is worth reading:
"Original modelling by Frontier Economics for IPPR suggests that public ownership during the construction phase, followed by selling the completed asset to the private sector, could lower the cost of capital by a 0.2–0.4 per cent, which would save consumers £1.2–1.8 billion (in 2012 prices) between 2015 and 2035. If public ownership were to continue through the operational phase, but a private company was contracted to run each individual plant, costs could be lowered
by a further 0.8–1.2 per cent through to 2035, producing additional savings
for the consumer of £2.5–3.7 billion over this period. Since this is money that would otherwise be taken from households and businesses through their energy bills, this amounts to projected savings of £35–57 per household over the next 20 years (in 2012 prices)."
“The British nuclear industry is now really just a decommissioning industry”
SadEye asks about the long-term implications of the China nuclear deal.
Who’s going to take care of the clean up once it’s old technology. I won’t [Osborne] and it won’t be the Chinese. Hold on, I’ve got it. It’ll be the good old tax payer.
Guardian staff Good point. The British nuclear industry is now really just a decommissioning industry.
Updated
“The McDonnell U-turn may have been unedifying but at least Labour are in a more sensible position”
TheOutsider79 asks:
Labour’s idea of a national bank to fund infrastructure projects - if it was set up - would it be possible to fund projects like the nuclear plant the Chinese are investing in? and if so, would that money we spend on the projects be added to our GDP and not theirs? In your opinion what would’ve been the best way to finance projects like nuclear plants, HS2, new housing stock etc?
Guardian staff Thank you for reading and for writing in. I can think of two things that would help fund infrastructure:
1) More public borrowing. The McDonnell U-turn may have been unedifying but at least Labour are in a more sensible position.
2) chanelling more of our pension funds and savings into public assets. If pension- fund managers are after a safe single-digit return, why shouldn't they get them from investing in social housing rather than shares/bonds alone?
Updated
The webchat is underway
We did say you could ask Aditya anything (AAA?), so let’s get the biscuits question out of the way before heading on to the weightier topics.
Guardian staff Updated
Good afternoon. Aditya has arrived at Guardian Towers, and will be answering questions imminently. Get your questions to him by posting in the comments section below.
Good afternoon! Aditya will be online at 1pm (BST). As a senior economics commentator, Aditya Chakrabortty has written about some of the pressing questions of our age, from the democratic implications of ongoing austerity, to the housing crisis and the widening gap between rich and poor. His latest column addresses the implications of George Osborne’s nuclear and infrastructure deals with China and France:
At some point during this week’s visit of president Xi Jinping – perhaps sandwiched between lunch at the palace and a trip to Chequers – Osborne shall confirm that nuclear plants will be built at Hinkley in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk, by the energy giant EDF, nearly 85% owned by the French government, and China. What’s more, Beijing will get a shot at designing and building its own nuclear facility at Bradwell in Essex.
Britain has made ‘visionary’ choice to become China’s best friend, says Xi Read more
Even as that announcement is made with all the fanfare available to the British state, the promises of privatisation will be revealed as lies. What were voters guaranteed by Margaret Thatcher and John Major, as they flogged off electricity and the rest of our publicly-owned utilities? More competition, lower bills and greater investment: all the plump fruit of a more dynamic capitalism.
A generation later and their children, David Cameron and Osborne, are handing Britain’s nuclear future back to the public sector – of two foreign countries – and paying handsomely for the privilege.
Any questions for Aditya about Osborne’s plans, or any of the other topics he has written about? Post them below the line, and we’ll pull the best of your questions (and his answers) above the line.
Updated
Thanks to everyone for taking part, to comment is free for asking me to do this and to James Walsh for all his beneficence.
Have a lovely, sunny afternoon. I am going to have a Cherry Coke.