plan for collapse of Thames Water

[Murphy]

I think you fundamentally the role of the shareholder and how business work in the real world if you are asking that question.

Not sure what i fundamentally but at least i can say it's not coherent sentences.

 

[jpaul]

If we're having to pay more so the water companies can invest in future stuff what exactly is the job of shareholders?

Yep - Listen to todays r4 interview with inane OFWAT who are permitting these rises without more performance constraints on the board ... interviewer basically said how long do you think you will be in a job ?
Starmer needs to pull his finger out like with OFGEM (& green tax) and control these quangos, who seem to be self rather than consumer serving.

 

[darkgen]

I've listened to quite a few interviews and comments today and even though _I_ think the rug is finally going to be pulled from under the feet of these charlatans, I know deep down, this will just not happen. The government / sector / interested party is utterly impotent in correcting any of this.

"Har har, your bills are going up and there is absolutely nothing anyone is going to do about it."

 

[Blackjack Davy]

I'm sure those poor shareholders, CEOs and pension fund holders are desperately sorry for all of the money they extracted from TW over the years.

All of the money that should have been sent to operational channels to maintain the service they are paid to provide.

All that money stashed away in trust funds in the Seychelles, I'm sure they're crying all the way to the bank. Not to worry customers are sure to cough up even more money from their empty bank accounts to cover it.

 

[ttaskmaster]

This is what happens when you don't spend on infrastructure in good times.

And that lack of investment back when it was publicly owned is what resulted in privatisation....

At least, on paper, if it was nationalised, it could be run as a non-profit public service entity but Christ knows who would run it effectively and efficiently. Clearly none of the existing water companies / regulators have any clue.

It will be run by the same people who run it now, as they're the only ones who know how it all works (or is designed to work). The staff will be taken on as employees of the government and it will be business as usual, for them.

I always thought selling shares was meant to raise funds to invest in a company, but now customers are being asked to pay more for future promises.

It does raise funds. The idea is for the shareholders to not then take the money and run, though.

 

[darkgen]

It will be run by the same people who run it now, as they're the only ones who know how it all works (or is designed to work). The staff will be taken on as employees of the government and it will be business as usual, for them.

Of course. This was not a pop at operations, engineers, contractors etc. It was directed at the owners and shell owners of these companies irrespective whether hands were tied or not regarding actual investment in to the sector. Another bonus of nationalisation would be to remove all that bloat and propensity for malfeasance. Although, as I pointed out, the confidence in whatever then came next is not high.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Another bonus of nationalisation would be to remove all that bloat and propensity for malfeasance. Although, as I pointed out, the confidence in whatever then came next is not high.

The malfeasance will remain. It's what got us privatised.
The ONLY difference is that you'll be blaming government mishandling (again) instead of private ower mishandling.

 

[darkgen]

The malfeasance will remain. It's what got us privatised.
The ONLY difference is that you'll be blaming government mishandling (again) instead of private ower mishandling.

I don't disagree but at least there would be full accountability to the tax-payer (hah)!