Ha, I know. It just so happens you brought up that tired, the private sector always does it better troupe, and I couldn't resist. funny how the people who would spout it at the time never come in to defend that position when it goes wrong, and only manage such insights as "lol lefty" or somehow it's still only the government's fault it's gone wrong, the private sector is faultless.
plan for collapse of Thames Water
- Thread starter Mrwong
- Start date
The BBC, no doubt trying desperately hard to please their Tory masters, suggested that one of the reasons Thames Water was failing might be (or is said to be) "excessive regulation". Had to laugh. The Of* agencies are utterly spineless, every one of them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 7,997
People have short memories people always carry the can when the banks suffered near collapse under Gordon Brown he nationalised them loading up the tax payer up to the eyeballs in debt. I remember people had huge saving pots in icelandic banks that didn't have FSCS protection with much higher interest rates, whereas I put mine in the protected ones because I didn't want the risk. I should have just put them in the high risk bank instead because Brown announced he was going to bail out everyone regardless they got to keep their money, at huge taxpayer expense and they got to keep the interest on top. Governments never change, you're always going to be disappointed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 7,997
The original idea and I'm old enough to remember when they were sold off was the idea that it was taking out of big bad state control and giving it into the hands of ordinary people, that everyone would have stake in the future of their own utilities. What actually happened was everyone sold off their shares for a quick bit of cash in their pockets and didn't give a hoot about the future of companies. Foreign investors then hoovered up all the shares and milked it for all it was worth there was a saying that water was white gold i.e. if oil is black gold then this was the water equivalent, a license to print money where they sucked all the profits out of the country and left the infrastructure to rot and when its no longer viable or have to spend money on it then oh, I'm resigning and here you go UK govt you can have it back. With all the debts financial or otherwise. Even tory mp's privately admit that it didn't go the way they expected or hoped for. And I'll admit I was a supporter of it back in the day but its plain its been an abject failure.
Soldato
At least they don't pretend to support services while cutting the taxes that pay for them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,775
generally I am not that political so perhaps I am totally wrong ..... but technically isn't the government a collection of public "servants" as as such if it worked properly nationalised / government run is the very definition of being in the hands of the people? profit from utilities going into the government coffers if it worked properly would be the same as going into our pockets but by us having reduced taxes and better public services.
mind you I figure I must have a general misunderstanding of the whole thing because I always thought the prime minister was the leader and that they would surround themselves with experts in their field ....,. which is absolutely not how it happens. (on this labour are no better - their shadow secretary for education hadn't actually finished her education so how was she an expert there?)
Last edited:
That's the idea, yes. The reality is that anyone, no matter how strong their morals, who ends up in parliament will either be bent to their will or be forced out the door. They're all bent as ****, we need another Guy Fawkes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,775
if public contributions are not enough then taxes need to increase...... but they need to increase fairly with big business actually paying their bit and the mega rich loopholes being closed which they can use for tax avoidance before squeezing everyone else.
how is it however that public services work in other countries where they are nationalised?
Someone should go through the dividends paid out by these companies... If they are running a deficit then surely there is no profit to be shared?
Permabanned
They are public servants on the surface but self serving beneath the thin veneer.
Soldato
As Thames water was the one with the largest number of customers then that means the others are in a pretty bad shape as well.People laugh at all of us that say public utilities should be in public hands.
Sure they can. Well not to bail them out but certainly to take over but then comes who do this bunch of criminal MPs gets to choose which mate gets to reap the rewards.
Soldato
People laugh at all of us that say public utilities should be in public hands.
Sure they can. Well not to bail them out but certainly to take over but then comes who do this bunch of criminal MPs gets to choose which mate gets to reap the rewards.
I believe that the investment needed in the next ten years is about £70 billion.
The criminal thing about this, is that one of the reasons cited for privatisation of the utilities was lack of investment by the previous governments. When will governments stop assuming? It's like so many things they do - full of assumptions, short-sighted and shockingly lacking in fine detail.
Last edited:
Soldato
Thames's previous investors (Macquarie) badly asset stripped the company, then sold up. New investors probably blindsided by the state of it when they bought it, then had to inject equity to re-establish asset replacement rates because the poor performance became apparent. My understanding is new investors have not taken a dividend.
Macquarie wades back into UK with majority stake in Southern Water
Australian investment bank left Thames Water saddled with debt when it sold up in 2017
www.google.com
Like they give a ****
Greedy people at the top of these companies will just milk a company for what its worth and help out their mates with masses of shares. They don't care if it then dies. They got theirs.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 26,593
I'm surprised a certain sub-group of posters don't have strong views on this. I'm sure we all know who I'm referring to.
I am surprised they found a legal route to do so though. "Your company must not pay out more in dividends than its available profits from current and previous financial years." from the gov website.
Privatising an essential utility in which there are no market forces at work, what could possibly go wrong?
You mean there's no actual incentive to invest in the company? It acts in the interest of shareholders, piles on debt and extracts wealth to?
It's just so unfortunate that no one could have foreseen this happening.
You mean there's no actual incentive to invest in the company? It acts in the interest of shareholders, piles on debt and extracts wealth to?
It's just so unfortunate that no one could have foreseen this happening.
Lol, just weird init.
More this stuff comes out the more damage it's going to do to the tories. Unfortunately people have short memories and it's going to fall in labours watch to pay for it.
Then, 4 years later the tories will be back saying "look at this huge deficit Labour have ran up" and I'm sure the public will slurp it up.
Real fear that Labour will last one term due to mess they are inheriting.
Then, 4 years later the tories will be back saying "look at this huge deficit Labour have ran up" and I'm sure the public will slurp it up.
Real fear that Labour will last one term due to mess they are inheriting.