|
Post by Gods on Mar 28, 2024 23:40:18 GMT
On the face of it you would think it was British Rail but the Water Board is giving them a close run for their money!
|
|
|
Post by stuammo on Mar 29, 2024 0:00:35 GMT
Thames water is certainly challenging. How does any company have debts of £14bn and remain functional? It’s absurd beyond belief.
|
|
|
Post by danceswithclams on Mar 29, 2024 4:43:38 GMT
All of them.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 29, 2024 7:40:56 GMT
Those that are a natural monopoly.
The point of a market economy is that consumers choose who they buy from the companies who provide the best service and value. You have no choice when it comes to which water company or train service you use - they are a completely artificial market and should be run as a public service.
It terms of who have gone the worst job since privatisation it has to be the water companies. They've poisoned our rivers and seas, done fuck all to improve the crumbling infrastructure and syphoned billions of pounds into the hands of filthy rich overseas investors. It's a scandal.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 29, 2024 7:53:05 GMT
There are certainly some shocking examples of privatisations that have not lived up to the prospectus.
At the same time it's hard to argue that The Post Office or the NHS make a strong cases for remaining in Govt ownership.
Is there a common factor I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Mar 29, 2024 8:30:22 GMT
We were talking about this very thing up the Foxhound last night. The consensus was the water companies because they have failed to invest in infrastructure instead furnishing their shareholders and investors in particular. Thames water are apparently owned by 9 different foreign investors many linked to pension funds. Many of our water companies have large foreign investors. Comparing this with all utilities privatisation and others have had to invest in infrastructure probably because they are in plain sight and need to keep up with technological advances. Whereas water companies can hide their Victorian infrastructure until such time as there is a problem with high profile stuff like water shortages & raw sewage leakage that needs larger investment but new investors are put off by the high debt of the industry. Quick wiki research shows that when privatised in 1989 water companies paid a total of £1.9b with the government writing off £5b of debt to help facilitate the sale, leaving water companies with no debt. Since then, they have borrowed £53 billion, and much of that has been used to help pay £72 billion in dividends. Imo, with exception of some railway operators, the other utilities have been a relative success since privatisation.
|
|
|
Post by innocentbystander on Mar 29, 2024 9:29:25 GMT
Water is a basic human right, available free for most of history. Allowing the rich to buy it up and make a profit out of the rest of society, whilst ignoring their basic environmental obligations, says everything you need to know about the Tories.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Mar 29, 2024 9:36:39 GMT
Genuinely think that any party promising to bring back the water industry into public ownership would see more votes coming there way
Possibly some of the others as well but definitely water
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 29, 2024 9:48:12 GMT
We were talking about this very thing up the Foxhound last night. The consensus was the water companies because they have failed to invest in infrastructure instead furnishing their shareholders and investors in particular. Thames water are apparently owned by 9 different foreign investors many linked to pension funds. Many of our water companies have large foreign investors. Comparing this with all utilities privatisation and others have had to invest in infrastructure probably because they are in plain sight and need to keep up with technological advances. Whereas water companies can hide their Victorian infrastructure until such time as there is a problem with high profile stuff like water shortages & raw sewage leakage that needs larger investment but new investors are put off by the high debt of the industry. Quick wiki research shows that when privatised in 1989 water companies paid a total of £1.9b with the government writing off £5b of debt to help facilitate the sale, leaving water companies with no debt. Since then, they have borrowed £53 billion, and much of that has been used to help pay £72 billion in dividends. Imo, with exception of some railway operators, the other utilities have been a relative success since privatisation. So you are happy to pay over inflated energy bills to enrich their investors, do you really love the font used on the invoices sent by your energy company or is the electric they provide that bit more electricy than before it was privitised and they added more electricy goodness? I do agree some industries should not have been in public ownership (e.g. cars and steel) and have benefited but I'm struggling to see the benefit of privatising anything that is a public service and a natural monopoly.
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Mar 29, 2024 9:50:15 GMT
There are certainly some shocking examples of privatisations that have not lived up to the prospectus. At the same time it's hard to argue that The Post Office or the NHS make a strong cases for remaining in Govt ownership. Is there a common factor I wonder? The NHS has been starved of money which affects performance, to manage to move satisfaction levels from 70% to 24% has taken some doing.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Mar 29, 2024 9:56:54 GMT
Those that are a natural monopoly.The point of a market economy is that consumers choose who they buy from the companies who provide the best service and value. You have no choice when it comes to which water company or train service you use - they are a completely artificial market and should be run as a public service. It terms of who have gone the worst job since privatisation it has to be the water companies. They've poisoned our rivers and seas, done fuck all to improve the crumbling infrastructure and syphoned billions of pounds into the hands of filthy rich overseas investors. It's a scandal. That's the point isn't it? Where there is a natural monopoly it makes no sense. The government went mad with this in the 1980's, remember the 'Tell Sid' campaign? My dad bought in to all of these sell-offs of our national assets in a small way. I know because when he sadly died I had to sort out his financial affairs and I was months trying to sort out his utilities etc. shares which had often gone to more and more companies as there were buy outs and takeovers, many of them overseas owned. And at the end of it all the sum didn't really add up to a row of beans. If you see Sid, tell him it was all a massive cluser fuck!
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Mar 29, 2024 10:03:36 GMT
We were talking about this very thing up the Foxhound last night. The consensus was the water companies because they have failed to invest in infrastructure instead furnishing their shareholders and investors in particular. Thames water are apparently owned by 9 different foreign investors many linked to pension funds. Many of our water companies have large foreign investors. Comparing this with all utilities privatisation and others have had to invest in infrastructure probably because they are in plain sight and need to keep up with technological advances. Whereas water companies can hide their Victorian infrastructure until such time as there is a problem with high profile stuff like water shortages & raw sewage leakage that needs larger investment but new investors are put off by the high debt of the industry. Quick wiki research shows that when privatised in 1989 water companies paid a total of £1.9b with the government writing off £5b of debt to help facilitate the sale, leaving water companies with no debt. Since then, they have borrowed £53 billion, and much of that has been used to help pay £72 billion in dividends. Imo, with exception of some railway operators, the other utilities have been a relative success since privatisation. So you are happy to pay over inflated energy bills to enrich their investors, do you really love the font used on the invoices sent by your energy company or is the electric they provide that bit more electricy than before it was privitised and they added more electricy goodness? I do agree some industries should not have been in public ownership (e.g. cars and steel) and have benefited but I'm struggling to see the benefit of privatising anything that is a public service and a natural monopoly. The very name of one of the biggest suppliers kind of gives it away, EDF - Electrique De France 😐 Loads of our energy supply is owned by overseas investment funds, pension funds etc.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Mar 29, 2024 10:18:03 GMT
So you are happy to pay over inflated energy bills to enrich their investors, do you really love the font used on the invoices sent by your energy company or is the electric they provide that bit more electricy than before it was privitised and they added more electricy goodness? I do agree some industries should not have been in public ownership (e.g. cars and steel) and have benefited but I'm struggling to see the benefit of privatising anything that is a public service and a natural monopoly. The very name of one of the biggest suppliers kind of gives it away, EDF - Electrique De France 😐 Loads of our energy supply is owned by overseas investment funds, pension funds etc. And many of those overseas investors are owned by governments. EDF is owned by the French government. In many ways we haven’t privatised, we have just sold our essential services to foreign governments.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 29, 2024 10:33:52 GMT
There are certainly some shocking examples of privatisations that have not lived up to the prospectus. At the same time it's hard to argue that The Post Office or the NHS make a strong cases for remaining in Govt ownership. Is there a common factor I wonder? The NHS has been starved of money which affects performance, to manage to move satisfaction levels from 70% to 24% has taken some doing. The question was rhetorical.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 29, 2024 10:34:06 GMT
Blows my mind that Carsington Water was the last major reservoir built in this country in like 91/92.
Nothing since despite (and this is a guess) the population increasing by 10-15m since then.
Utter greed.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Mar 29, 2024 11:02:12 GMT
Blows my mind that Carsington Water was the last major reservoir built in this country in like 91/92. Nothing since despite (and this is a guess) the population increasing by 10-15m since then. Utter greed. And meanwhile sold off dozens and dozens. And can't maintain the existing one's properly anyway. Its a bona fide national disgrace.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Mar 29, 2024 11:15:19 GMT
We were talking about this very thing up the Foxhound last night. The consensus was the water companies because they have failed to invest in infrastructure instead furnishing their shareholders and investors in particular. Thames water are apparently owned by 9 different foreign investors many linked to pension funds. Many of our water companies have large foreign investors. Comparing this with all utilities privatisation and others have had to invest in infrastructure probably because they are in plain sight and need to keep up with technological advances. Whereas water companies can hide their Victorian infrastructure until such time as there is a problem with high profile stuff like water shortages & raw sewage leakage that needs larger investment but new investors are put off by the high debt of the industry. Quick wiki research shows that when privatised in 1989 water companies paid a total of £1.9b with the government writing off £5b of debt to help facilitate the sale, leaving water companies with no debt. Since then, they have borrowed £53 billion, and much of that has been used to help pay £72 billion in dividends. Imo, with exception of some railway operators, the other utilities have been a relative success since privatisation. So you are happy to pay over inflated energy bills to enrich their investors, do you really love the font used on the invoices sent by your energy company or is the electric they provide that bit more electricy than before it was privitised and they added more electricy goodness? I do agree some industries should not have been in public ownership (e.g. cars and steel) and have benefited but I'm struggling to see the benefit of privatising anything that is a public service and a natural monopoly. Energy prices have been mainly inflated by the very high cost of gas & oil. The investment by various energy companies and internet/telecom providers to improve infrastructure as technology moves on is there to see. With the exception of water companies, I fail to see your "monopoly" argument with the numerous energy, internet and telecom providers that provide choice to the consumer. Utility companies etc staying in public ownership would have had to see similar investment to keep up with technology but it would need to be paid for from somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by stokeson on Mar 29, 2024 11:50:45 GMT
Lets face it everything Thatcher touched has turned to shit. Council house sales ,Privatisation and the whole "Greed is Good" ethos. We are now living the Thatcherite dream..........................
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Mar 29, 2024 11:56:15 GMT
Blows my mind that Carsington Water was the last major reservoir built in this country in like 91/92. Nothing since despite (and this is a guess) the population increasing by 10-15m since then. Utter greed. Increased by 9 million in that time Still a significant number, your point more than valid
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 29, 2024 12:10:57 GMT
Lets face it everything Thatcher touched has turned to shit. Council house sales ,Privatisation and the whole "Greed is Good" ethos. We are now living the Thatcherite dream.......................... There was a Thatcherite dream, that many bought into at the time, now, as a result, we are living the Thatcherite nightmare.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Mar 29, 2024 12:17:43 GMT
Doesn't matter who owns the energy companies, the prices are set by the global energy market. We could extract our own or produce our own electricity but the price will still be the same. It's another of those global organisations that we need to extract ourselves from.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 29, 2024 12:59:15 GMT
So you are happy to pay over inflated energy bills to enrich their investors, do you really love the font used on the invoices sent by your energy company or is the electric they provide that bit more electricy than before it was privitised and they added more electricy goodness? I do agree some industries should not have been in public ownership (e.g. cars and steel) and have benefited but I'm struggling to see the benefit of privatising anything that is a public service and a natural monopoly. Energy prices have been mainly inflated by the very high cost of gas & oil. The investment by various energy companies and internet/telecom providers to improve infrastructure as technology moves on is there to see. With the exception of water companies, I fail to see your "monopoly" argument with the numerous energy, internet and telecom providers that provide choice to the consumer. Utility companies etc staying in public ownership would have had to see similar investment to keep up with technology but it would need to be paid for from somewhere. I'm not sure the Energy companies have invested hugely have they? We havent had a new power plant built this century and Hinkley B is not due until the 2030's. The National Grid is separate from the energy companies leaving retail energy supply largely a reseller activity - many of whom have gone bust over the past 3 years through trying to play the market too aggressively and removing the very competition privatisation was supposed to offer.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 29, 2024 13:47:15 GMT
Doesn't matter who owns the energy companies, the prices are set by the global energy market. We could extract our own or produce our own electricity but the price will still be the same. It's another of those global organisations that we need to extract ourselves from. Why is energy cheaper in other countries? Doesn’t quite fit that narrative?
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Mar 29, 2024 14:09:08 GMT
Doesn't matter who owns the energy companies, the prices are set by the global energy market. We could extract our own or produce our own electricity but the price will still be the same. It's another of those global organisations that we need to extract ourselves from. Why is energy cheaper in other countries? Doesn’t quite fit that narrative? Don't know the answer but I'm guessing nuclear and renewables are separate to oil gas and coal?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 29, 2024 14:11:41 GMT
Why is energy cheaper in other countries? Doesn’t quite fit that narrative? Don't know the answer but I'm guessing nuclear and renewables are separate to oil gas and coal? The make up of where your main energy sources come from will help for sure. As will having your own source of fossil fuels. I’d say with the renewables we have and gas fields we should have much lower energy prices.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Mar 29, 2024 14:18:27 GMT
Don't know the answer but I'm guessing nuclear and renewables are separate to oil gas and coal? The make up of where your main energy sources come from will help for sure. As will having your own source of fossil fuels. I’d say with the renewables we have and gas fields we should have much lower energy prices. I'd say with the volatile state of the world it would be a dereliction of our govts duty to not ensure we can maintain affordable power. Reliance on Russia or the Middle East would be stupid. In my humble opinion we should have followed France and done far more nuclear. And gas shouldn't be demonised as it is. We still need fossil fuels and will do for quite some time..
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 29, 2024 14:22:16 GMT
The make up of where your main energy sources come from will help for sure. As will having your own source of fossil fuels. I’d say with the renewables we have and gas fields we should have much lower energy prices. I'd say with the volatile state of the world it would be a dereliction of our govts duty to not ensure we can maintain affordable power. Reliance on Russia or the Middle East would be stupid. In my humble opinion we should have followed France and done far more nuclear. And gas shouldn't be demonised as it is. We still need fossil fuels and will do for quite some time.. I think you do for transport (cars) but I do think it shouldn’t be that difficult to get away from it for electricity generation. A mix of of wind, solar, hydro and develop tide should see a massive capability. I also think it’s daft that all new bourse don’t have solar panels. Nuclear should definitely be used more too as your more guaranteed baseline.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Mar 29, 2024 14:24:17 GMT
I'd say with the volatile state of the world it would be a dereliction of our govts duty to not ensure we can maintain affordable power. Reliance on Russia or the Middle East would be stupid. In my humble opinion we should have followed France and done far more nuclear. And gas shouldn't be demonised as it is. We still need fossil fuels and will do for quite some time.. I think you do for transport (cars) but I do think it shouldn’t be that difficult to get away from it for electricity generation. A mix of of wind, solar, hydro and develop tide should see a massive capability. I also think it’s daft that all new bourse don’t have solar panels. Nuclear should definitely be used more too as your more guaranteed baseline. I've heard there's some big advancements coming in solar panels and efficiency capabilities. Hopefully in the coming years they give everything a big boost..
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Mar 29, 2024 14:26:22 GMT
Doesn't matter who owns the energy companies, the prices are set by the global energy market. We could extract our own or produce our own electricity but the price will still be the same. It's another of those global organisations that we need to extract ourselves from. Why is energy cheaper in other countries? Doesn’t quite fit that narrative? France is somewhat cheaper than ours because it is subsidised by the government but they buy it in at the same as everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 29, 2024 22:33:45 GMT
Doesn't matter who owns the energy companies, the prices are set by the global energy market. We could extract our own or produce our own electricity but the price will still be the same. It's another of those global organisations that we need to extract ourselves from. Unlike oil there isn't a global energy market - prices vary markedly from country to country depending on cost of feedstock, generation mix, infrastructure, and interconnectivity. www.cable.co.uk/energy/worldwide-pricing/#pricingIt's true that if a major feedstock like oil or gas increases electricity will generally follow suit around the world - but to varying degrees. However within a country it would be true to say ownership is irrelavent to price as no supplier will offer spot pricing markedly different from another and will operate to an index. Unless you subscribe to a Private wire and purchase direct from a small biomass offgrid generator or suchlike that is.
|
|