plan for collapse of Thames Water

Mrwong said:
Water firms’ debts since privatisation hit £54bn as Ofwat refuses to impose limits.

England’s privatised water firms paid £57bn in dividends since 1991

Hum. And yet every single government failed to connect the dots.
Click to expand...

It's an absolute disgrace that critical supply companies are allowed to get away with this sort of disgusting behaviour. What are governments for, if not to stop this sort of thing from happening? I'm not sure whether to be more angry at Thames Water or successive governments.
 
SpellowHouse said:
It's an absolute disgrace that critical supply companies are allowed to get away with this sort of disgusting behaviour. What are governments for, if not to stop this sort of thing from happening? I'm not sure whether to be more angry at Thames Water or successive governments.
Click to expand...
You might have thought so, but it's in the Tories' DNA to sell off everything they can. It's their modus operandi, their raison d'etre.

If we want critical/core infrastructure in the hands of the people/state, then we can't just keep electing the Tories and wondering why private companies own everything. That is what they do. They sell national assets for a fraction of their worth because... because... yeah, I'm drawing a blank.
 
absolute disgrace....... vital public services should never be privatised because normal market forces cant apply. The fact that it was not glaringly obvious that the situation would be, milk it when things are going well, then let the populace bail out when things go badly show that government was either corrupt or totally inept when selling off.

which ever one it was, shows no one doing that deserves to be in power.
 
SpellowHouse said:
It's an absolute disgrace that critical supply companies are allowed to get away with this sort of disgusting behaviour. What are governments for, if not to stop this sort of thing from happening? I'm not sure whether to be more angry at Thames Water or successive governments.
Click to expand...
I am happy to be angry at both to be honest.
dont get me wrong......... my dad was doing some contract building work for the water board back in the day and he said the way it was run was a real sh..show with countless money wasted and inept management.

so it wasnt all roses when it was nationalised either.
 
bigmike20vt said:
I am happy to be angry at both to be honest.
dont get me wrong......... my dad was doing some contract building work for the water board back in the day and he said the way it was run was a real sh..show with countless money wasted and inept management.

so it wasnt all roses when it was nationalised either.
Click to expand...

This is the problem though isn't it.

If it's under public ownership then things tend to be wasteful as it's the publics money and it's clearly infinite.

If it's under private ownership then every last penny is squeezed, even if that means lack of investment for better profits.

A middle ground needs to exist.
 
Uther said:
And in other (Sky) news...
''Water bills could rise 40% to pay for the cost of tackling the sewage crisis and the consequences of climate change, according to a report in The Times.

Water companies are said to be proposing hikes after they alarmed ministers by saying they need extra money to meet pollution targets.

The rises are due to be announced next year, The Times reports.

Annual bills could increase from an average of about £450 to £680, plus inflation.

Water prices already rose in April by up to 11% in some areas.

The Times reports that prices rises will be different across the country.

Southern Water is proposing increasing bills from £432 to a minimum of £677 by 2030 - and it could be as high as £793, the report says. South East Water is planning to increase its bills by as much as 39% by 2030, according to the newspaper. The figure for Thames Water is 20%.

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt will raise the issue with water regulator Ofwat today.''
Click to expand...
Well Jeremy Hunt should tell them to **** off.

We've already paid towards improving the system but they've failed to invest and now act surprised that the network isn't fit for purpose.

Why was privatising essential services ever seen as a good idea. The companies just extract as much money as possible, invest as little as they can get away with and if it all goes **** up then the taxpayer steps in to pay for it. Madness.
 
Puzzled said:
Well Jeremy Hunt should tell them to **** off.

We've already paid towards improving the system but they've failed to invest and now act surprised that the network isn't fit for purpose.

Why was privatising essential services ever seen as a good idea. The companies just extract as much money as possible, invest as little as they can get away with and if it all goes **** up then the taxpayer steps in to pay for it. Madness.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

It is all so short-sighted.

Privatised utilities are ****** stupid. Companies can just milk the teet dry, go bust and then have the government bail them out because people kind of need water.

What incentive do these corporations have to actually improve the lives of the British people and provide a good service, instead of just taking as much profit as possible for themselves? None.
 
Last edited:
Stretch said:
The tax payer might have to take on some or all of the liabilities but they should be able to reacquire the business for next to nothing.

It’s not a great deal for the country but not a really bad one either.

Assuming the government drives a hard bargain.
Click to expand...

Agreed could the government not pay off the debts then receive back all the assets and the company free of charge ?
 
Surely the shareholders / creditors / hedge funds should swallow the majority of the debt through bankruptcy and then pick up the assets under a nominal charge. Hell, pass through emergency primary legislation to bring it back under a public body.
 
Whilst some privatisations were more understandable like BT for instance, the natural monopolies of the water companies was an ideological leap too far. Even electricity privatisation had some large immediate benefits. For instance by bringing PowerGen and National Power into competition created big savings on operating costs as the CEGB was massively overstaffed. But all the regulatory tossing off since then has brought little in the way of improvement to the initial split which allowed the regulator to compare to two large generators against each other. Electricity distribution though is another natural monopoly that should never have gone into private hands like the water companies, just an easy way for investors to make money off trapped customers.

Nationalised industries were failing the country when privatisation began but the process was extended far beyond what really added value.

I think the concept of the market knows best has been tested to destruction, unsurprisingly the sweet spot is going to be somewhere between nationalised industries and private ones largely in relation to the ability of the customer to genuinely choose provision. I think we also need to look at strategically essential industries and choose which we want and which we can live without.
 
Last edited:
It's a bit odd that what amounts to sabotaging infrastructure isn't considered a treasonable offence in this country, but considering all the liars, cheaters and frauds we elect I guess it makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom