|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 19, 2024 11:36:49 GMT
I know the issue of Thames Water going bust has been mentioned on the Government thread several times but I thought it might be worthwhile giving it it's own thread, as it seems likely, that's it's going to become a pretty major story over the next few weeks.
When Thatcher sold off the water companies in 1989 they were sold completely debt free, with the promise that the tax payer would never have to pay for infrastructure costs ever again, as the free market would take on that burden. Yet we've now reached a point where there has been little to no investment in the crumbling infrastructure, our rivers are full of shit and despite numerous reservoirs having been sold off to private property developers, not a single new reservoir has been built and all the while massive dividends have been paid to shareholders, actually larger in number than the profits made, leading to a company that is now about to collapse with nearly £16 billion in debts.
So why should the tax payer have to pick up the majority of the debt under the Government's new proposal?
Is it nothing more than privatised profit and nationalised debt, where yet again, the little man has to pay for the big man's greed?
|
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Apr 19, 2024 11:44:35 GMT
I know the issue of Thames Water going bust has been mentioned on the Government thread several times but I thought it might be worthwhile giving it it's own thread, as it seems likely, that's it's going to become a pretty major story over the next few weeks. When Thatcher sold off the water companies in 1989 they were sold completely debt free, with the promise that the tax payer would never have to pay for infrastructure costs ever again, as the free market would take on that burden. Yet we've now reached a point where there has been little to no investment in the crumbling infrastructure, our rivers are full of shit and despite numerous reservoirs having been sold off to private property developers, not a single new reservoir has been built and all the while massive dividends have been paid to shareholders, actually larger in number than the profits made, leading to a company that is now about to collapse with nearly £16 billion in debts.
So why should the tax payer have to pick up the majority of the debt under the Government's new proposal? Is it nothing more than privatised profit and nationalised debt, where yet again, the little man has to paid for the big man's greed?
It boils my blood. People say we need to cut benefits or reduce handouts. What about handouts to shareholders. How do we have a system which makes it legal to pay out dividends when there is debt? Those dividends being taxed at a lower rate than PAYE income tax rates (although most shareholders seem to be foreign governments or non-doms so probably pay little if no tax here). Why is it that our government is content to reduce handouts to disabled people, but they are happy to let the superrich off billions of debt they have caused? And even if they make the shareholders cover the debt, we are still going to have to fund the new infrastructure. Thatcher’s legacy really is obliterated by this. She was absolute failure of a PM, only worsened by the succession of Tory PMs since Brexit in my opinion. Voters should NEVER let the tories in again. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Apr 19, 2024 11:49:51 GMT
It's an absolute fucking disgrace.
|
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Apr 19, 2024 11:51:31 GMT
Thames Water is £15 billion in debt but in 30 years has paid £7.5 billion out in dividends - how the fuck does that work!!
Nearly crashed the car when a talking bonce on the radio previously said if we wanted to maintain clean drinking water and avoid shit going into the rivers then customers would need to foot the bill - what the fuck have we been paying for if not clean water and not having shit floating down rivers!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by LGH87 on Apr 19, 2024 12:20:03 GMT
Yet 90% of the population are probably not even aware of this story and it's ramifications.
They'd probably just blame immigrants if they did anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Apr 19, 2024 12:27:32 GMT
With such debt, hopefully the Govt can step in and just repurpose the company. Don’t bail them out, let them pop then take back everything that Thatcher gave to her friends.
|
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Apr 19, 2024 12:39:39 GMT
Tory nationalisation.
Privatise the profit, nationalise the debt..........
|
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 19, 2024 12:41:29 GMT
I know the issue of Thames Water going bust has been mentioned on the Government thread several times but I thought it might be worthwhile giving it it's own thread, as it seems likely, that's it's going to become a pretty major story over the next few weeks.
When Thatcher sold off the water companies in 1989 they were sold completely debt free, with the promise that the tax payer would never have to pay for infrastructure costs ever again, as the free market would take on that burden. Yet we've now reached a point where there has been little to no investment in the crumbling infrastructure, our rivers are full of shit and despite numerous reservoirs having been sold off to private property developers, not a single new reservoir has been built and all the while massive dividends have been paid to shareholders, actually larger in number than the profits made, leading to a company that is now about to collapse with nearly £16 billion in debts.
So why should the tax payer have to pick up the majority of the debt under the Government's new proposal?
Is it nothing more than privatised profit and nationalised debt, where yet again, the little man has to pay for the big man's greed?
The Headline is contradictory to the commentary If Thames Water goes into liquidation then the Lenders of the £15 Billion would suffer the loss. Government could then buy it out of Administration for Pennies in the £ from the Administrator All good so far. What would be a scandal would be to allow Thames Water to increase prices by 56% which they have requested effectively making Thames Water Customers pay for the Capital Investment in Infrastructure needed In the meantime Ofwat need to do their f'kin job, inspect Thames Water vigorously and fine them for breaches of their contractual obligations which would accelerate the Administration |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 19, 2024 12:51:10 GMT
I know the issue of Thames Water going bust has been mentioned on the Government thread several times but I thought it might be worthwhile giving it it's own thread, as it seems likely, that's it's going to become a pretty major story over the next few weeks.
When Thatcher sold off the water companies in 1989 they were sold completely debt free, with the promise that the tax payer would never have to pay for infrastructure costs ever again, as the free market would take on that burden. Yet we've now reached a point where there has been little to no investment in the crumbling infrastructure, our rivers are full of shit and despite numerous reservoirs having been sold off to private property developers, not a single new reservoir has been built and all the while massive dividends have been paid to shareholders, actually larger in number than the profits made, leading to a company that is now about to collapse with nearly £16 billion in debts.
So why should the tax payer have to pick up the majority of the debt under the Government's new proposal?
Is it nothing more than privatised profit and nationalised debt, where yet again, the little man has to pay for the big man's greed?
The Headline is contradictory to the commentary If Thames Water goes into liquidation then the Lenders of the £15 Billion would suffer the loss. Government could then buy it out of Administration for Pennies in the £ from the Administrator All good so far. What would be a scandal would be to allow Thames Water to increase prices by 56% which they have requested effectively making Thames Water Customers pay for the Capital Investment in Infrastructure needed In the meantime Ofwat need to do their f'kin job, inspect Thames Water vigorously and fine them for breaches of their contractual obligations which would accelerate the Administration
Thames Water could be renationalised, with the bulk of its £15.6bn debt added to the public purse, under radical plans being considered by the government, the Guardian can reveal.
The blueprint, codenamed Project Timber, is being drawn up in Whitehall and would turn Britain’s biggest water company into a publicly owned arm’s-length body. Some lenders to its core operating company could lose up to 40% of their money under the plans.
The contingency planning, which is at an advanced stage, reflects the deep concern in Whitehall about the state of a company that has become a symbol of the failure of privatisation in public utilities. It had no debt when it was taken out of public ownership in 1989.
However, the lenders likely to bear the most pain under renationalisation would be the smaller share of creditors to Thames, known as category B bondholders, who hold about £1.6bn of Thames’ operating company debt. The vast majority of category A bondholders, who are owed about £13bn, would face a smaller “haircut” of about 5%-10% under a central scenario, although this could rise to 25% in a more extreme scenario.
Government contingency plans could see bulk of debt taken on by state with utility split in two ...
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Apr 19, 2024 13:07:19 GMT
With such debt, hopefully the Govt can step in and just repurpose the company. Don’t bail them out, let them pop then take back everything that Thatcher gave to her friends. that should apply to any company the govt decide to bail out |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 19, 2024 13:22:44 GMT
The Headline is contradictory to the commentary If Thames Water goes into liquidation then the Lenders of the £15 Billion would suffer the loss. Government could then buy it out of Administration for Pennies in the £ from the Administrator All good so far. What would be a scandal would be to allow Thames Water to increase prices by 56% which they have requested effectively making Thames Water Customers pay for the Capital Investment in Infrastructure needed In the meantime Ofwat need to do their f'kin job, inspect Thames Water vigorously and fine them for breaches of their contractual obligations which would accelerate the Administration
Thames Water could be renationalised, with the bulk of its £15.6bn debt added to the public purse, under radical plans being considered by the government, the Guardian can reveal.
The blueprint, codenamed Project Timber, is being drawn up in Whitehall and would turn Britain’s biggest water company into a publicly owned arm’s-length body. Some lenders to its core operating company could lose up to 40% of their money under the plans.
The contingency planning, which is at an advanced stage, reflects the deep concern in Whitehall about the state of a company that has become a symbol of the failure of privatisation in public utilities. It had no debt when it was taken out of public ownership in 1989.
However, the lenders likely to bear the most pain under renationalisation would be the smaller share of creditors to Thames, known as category B bondholders, who hold about £1.6bn of Thames’ operating company debt. The vast majority of category A bondholders, who are owed about £13bn, would face a smaller “haircut” of about 5%-10% under a central scenario, although this could rise to 25% in a more extreme scenario.
What I posted is what Baron Sikka outlined what should happen in the second part of hisTweet, I completely agree with him The four main Bondholders of Thames Water are, The Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, the U.K.'s Universities Superannuation Scheme, the China Investment Corporation, and a subsidiary of the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund Capitalism is supposed to be about Risk and Reward It may well be Treasury are considering various options to get out of this mess created by Thatcher and poor Regulation If the proposal the Guardian are suggesting is being considered the Bondholders will suffer what is known as a Haircut of 40% Whatever decision is made will be a Political decision but its likely to be highly controversial as Thames Water is by no means unique with an estimated £90 Billion needed across all England and Wales Water Companies. Scottish Taxpayers in particular (Hi Noustie) may feel particularly aggrieved as Scottish Water was never Nationalised |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 19, 2024 13:28:12 GMT
Thames Water could be renationalised, with the bulk of its £15.6bn debt added to the public purse, under radical plans being considered by the government, the Guardian can reveal.
The blueprint, codenamed Project Timber, is being drawn up in Whitehall and would turn Britain’s biggest water company into a publicly owned arm’s-length body. Some lenders to its core operating company could lose up to 40% of their money under the plans.
The contingency planning, which is at an advanced stage, reflects the deep concern in Whitehall about the state of a company that has become a symbol of the failure of privatisation in public utilities. It had no debt when it was taken out of public ownership in 1989.
However, the lenders likely to bear the most pain under renationalisation would be the smaller share of creditors to Thames, known as category B bondholders, who hold about £1.6bn of Thames’ operating company debt. The vast majority of category A bondholders, who are owed about £13bn, would face a smaller “haircut” of about 5%-10% under a central scenario, although this could rise to 25% in a more extreme scenario.
The four main Bondholders of Thames Water are, The Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, the U.K.'s Universities Superannuation Scheme, the China Investment Corporation, and a subsidiary of the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund Capitalism is supposed to be about Risk and Reward It may well be Treasury are considering various options to get out of this mess created by Thatcher and poor Regulation If the proposal the Guardian are suggesting is being considered the Bondholders will suffer what is known as a Haircut of 40% Whatever decision is made will be a Political decision but its likely to be highly controversial as Thames Water is by no means unique with an estimated £90 Billion needed across all England and Wales Water Companies. Scottish Taxpayers in particular (Hi Noustie) may feel particularly aggrieved as Scottish Water was never Nationalised
Exactly, that why I posted Sikka's tweet in the OP.
The Guardian and the FT are merely reporting the Government's proposals.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Apr 19, 2024 22:25:22 GMT
OK, when utilities are nationalised it ensures all maintenance is up to date. Any innovation can be implemented and the populace gets good service.
BUT, how can people make money from it?
|
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 19, 2024 22:48:36 GMT
OK, when utilities are nationalised it ensures all maintenance is up to date. Any innovation can be implemented and the populace gets good service. BUT, how can people make money from it? The model used in UK by Thatcher was purely idealogical without the checks and balances of let's say in Australia the New Public Management NPM Your first sentence is key, the Regulators entrusted to ensure this didn't do a very good job and it became worse from 2010 when the Regulators Budget was slashed under Austerity there was little or no Regulation to speak of Even in Australia the Limited success of Testra only manifested after the introduction of competition. You can't have Competition in the supply of Water its a Monopoly which is why it should never have been Privatised in the first place because the fundamentals to improve on Public Ownership are simply not there. |
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Apr 19, 2024 23:57:46 GMT
OK, when utilities are nationalised it ensures all maintenance is up to date. Any innovation can be implemented and the populace gets good service. BUT, how can people make money from it? The model used in UK by Thatcher was purely idealogical without the checks and balances of let's say in Australia the New Public Management NPM Your first sentence is key, the Regulators entrusted to ensure this didn't do a very good job and it became worse from 2010 when the Regulators Budget was slashed under Austerity there was little or no Regulation to speak of Even in Australia the Limited success of Testra only manifested after the introduction of competition. You can't have Competition in the supply of Water its a Monopoly which is why it should never have been Privatised in the first place because the fundamentals to improve on Public Ownership are simply not there. As ethically flawed as Thames Water is their executives have made millions from it. OK, services are poor, excrement is pumped into rivers etc. BUT the important thing is they make their wad. The market will protect us. |
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Apr 20, 2024 0:35:50 GMT
The sole reason private companies exist is to make profit for their owners.
They are duty bound to take any steps necessary to make maximum profit.
The water companies in Britain have been allowed to charge for their services, without making any investments at all.
Their is no competition for their services so they can charge whatever they like. They have been given licenses to print money, and , not surprisingly, they have used them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 21, 2024 22:19:27 GMT
The sole reason private companies exist is to make profit for their owners. They are duty bound to take any steps necessary to make maximum profit. The water companies in Britain have been allowed to charge for their services, without making any investments at all. Their is no competition for their services so they can charge whatever they like. They have been given licenses to print steel our money, and , not surprisingly, they have used them.
I've taken the liberty of adding to your post ...
|
|
|
|
Post by NassauDave on Apr 22, 2024 7:11:38 GMT
The sole reason private companies exist is to make profit for their owners. They are duty bound to take any steps necessary to make maximum profit. The water companies in Britain have been allowed to charge for their services, without making any investments at all. Their is no competition for their services so they can charge whatever they like. They have been given licenses to print steel our money, and , not surprisingly, they have used them. I've taken the liberty of adding to your post ...
Iron clad comment.😉 |
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Apr 22, 2024 15:25:06 GMT
Thames Water could be renationalised, with the bulk of its £15.6bn debt added to the public purse, under radical plans being considered by the government, the Guardian can reveal. The blueprint, codenamed Project Timber, is being drawn up in Whitehall and would turn Britain’s biggest water company into a publicly owned arm’s-length body. Some lenders to its core operating company could lose up to 40% of their money under the plans. The contingency planning, which is at an advanced stage, reflects the deep concern in Whitehall about the state of a company that has become a symbol of the failure of privatisation in public utilities. It had no debt when it was taken out of public ownership in 1989. However, the lenders likely to bear the most pain under renationalisation would be the smaller share of creditors to Thames, known as category B bondholders, who hold about £1.6bn of Thames’ operating company debt. The vast majority of category A bondholders, who are owed about £13bn, would face a smaller “haircut” of about 5%-10% under a central scenario, although this could rise to 25% in a more extreme scenario.
What I posted is what Baron Sikka outlined what should happen in the second part of hisTweet, I completely agree with him The four main Bondholders of Thames Water are, The Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, the U.K.'s Universities Superannuation Scheme, the China Investment Corporation, and a subsidiary of the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund Capitalism is supposed to be about Risk and Reward It may well be Treasury are considering various options to get out of this mess created by Thatcher and poor Regulation If the proposal the Guardian are suggesting is being considered the Bondholders will suffer what is known as a Haircut of 40% Whatever decision is made will be a Political decision but its likely to be highly controversial as Thames Water is by no means unique with an estimated £90 Billion needed across all England and Wales Water Companies. Scottish Taxpayers in particular (Hi Noustie) may feel particularly aggrieved as Scottish Water was never Nationalised Unsurprisingly it isn't widely publicized that Scottish water is the cleanest and has the best customer satisfaction scores in the UK. It's linked to our Council Tax and think I'm under £300 a year so think it's up there as the cheapest despite quite a dispersed population. |
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Apr 23, 2024 21:04:57 GMT
Yet another Tory fuck up... and Thames water have the gall to tell people not to swim in the sea because they enjoy pumping human shit into it.
Lovely.
|
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Apr 24, 2024 4:38:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 24, 2024 9:21:42 GMT
WTAF?
It's like being mugged in broad daylight with Sky News recording at the scene and the perpetrator doesn't give a flying fuck because he knows that nobody is going to do anything about it!
|
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Apr 24, 2024 21:00:02 GMT
WTAF? It's like being mugged in broad daylight with Sky News recording at the scene and the perpetrator doesn't give a flying fuck because he knows that nobody is going to do anything about it!
Yes... And you seem surprised by this. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 24, 2024 21:31:07 GMT
WTAF?
It's like being mugged in broad daylight with Sky News recording at the scene and the perpetrator doesn't give a flying fuck because he knows that nobody is going to do anything about it!
This is not even a difficult problem for Government/Regulators to solve just that Rishi is shitting in his Nappy Every five years, Ofwat, the economic regulator, sets the package of investment that companies must deliver and controls the prices companies can charge to fund this investment. Each year companies use a formula overseen by Ofwat to add up to the CPIH rate of inflation to the wholesale element of their charges.
www.water.org.uk/news-views-publications/news/water-bills-rise-less-inflation-record-support-available-those-most#:~:text=Every%20five%20years%2C%20Ofwat%2C%20the,wholesale%20element%20of%20their%20charges. |
|
