As long as the shareholders don't suffer.

[Psamathe]

Bond and investors proposing taking over Thames Water to save it from special administration and Gov. taking over. Ms Reeves in favour of investors running it rather than Gov.

Daft thing is, with the investor running the company whose interests will they be working for? The public who need water & sewage services, etc. or for the income (interest, repayments) to those investing? Of course run by investors will be run in the interests of the investors rather than public. And to highlight that their proposal includes

Thames Water to do fewer improvement projects under lenders’ new rescue plan
New consortium says infrastructure projects must be cut back to make beleaguered company viable again

Thames Water customers are set to get less bang for their buck if a consortium of creditors wins approval for its rescue plan.

Apparently the investors propose sacking loads of managers/board to put their people in to run the place - those same managers/board for whom massive bonus payments have been obligatory to retain them as they are "crucial" to the business operation. Either they are ctucial and warrant those massive bon uses or they are not - cannot be both.

We are being spun a line and one that's not in our interests.

 

[CXRAndy]

What, you hadn't realised that anything our government says isn't spin?

Just call it for that it is, lies and deceitfulness

 

[C R]

Oooh, it has learnt how capitalism works!

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Shouldn't the ever so liberal and truth seeking Guardian be reporting this? And maybe the BBC?
Anyhow here's the Mail. Check out the comments if you feel up to it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...es-stores-shuts-website-protest-Palestin.html

 

[Stevo 666]

Oooh, it has learnt how capitalism works!

He's a step ahead of some people on here then.

 

[Psamathe]

Oooh, it has learnt how capitalism works!

I suppose the issue/surprise is that Ms Reeves (Labour) favours the direction where the investors are protected to the detriment of the public. That after all the outcry over most of our rivers being turned into open sewers she (Ms Reeves) is still fighting for the investors. No surprises the investors are seeking to protect their interests just that Labour go along with that.

 

[C R]

I suppose the issue/surprise is that Ms Reeves (Labour) favours the direction where the investors are protected to the detriment of the public. That after all the outcry over most of our rivers being turned into open sewers she (Ms Reeves) is still fighting for the investors. No surprises the investors are seeking to protect their interests just that Labour go along with that.

I know. It is only complaining because the label on the government box is labour. If the label was conservative it would be all over the place defending the situation.

 

[Stevo 666]

I suppose the issue/surprise is that Ms Reeves (Labour) favours the direction where the investors are protected to the detriment of the public. That after all the outcry over most of our rivers being turned into open sewers she (Ms Reeves) is still fighting for the investors. No surprises the investors are seeking to protect their interests just that Labour go along with that.

Depends what aspects of the public interest we are talking about here. I don't think a lot of taxpayers will be too keen on having their tax money spent on nationalising a failing and poorly run company - probably best to keep it out of public ownership (at least for now) if the bond holders and investors think that they can deal with the situation.

 

[Psamathe]

Oooh, it has learnt how capitalism works!

I know. It is only complaining because the label on the government box is labour. If the label was conservative it would be all over the place defending the situation.

Thought the "It's" is referring to me (nobody else posting). I'd be posting the same if it was "Conservative" doing the same.

I really don't like it when our Government places wealthy investors (who assessed the risks and then decided to invest anyway) above the needs of the public who are already enduring their environment being destroyed.

 

[Psamathe]

Depends what aspects of the public interest we are talking about here. I don't think a lot of taxpayers will be too keen on having their tax money spent on nationalising a failing and poorly run company - probably best to keep it out of public ownership (at least for now) if the bond holders and investors think that they can deal with the situation.

Taxpayers are paying for it all anyway. Investors run the company and they'll be taking money out for themselves. Government run the company and they won't. Poorly run under private ownership does not mean it can't be run better under public ownership.

At least under Government ownership it will be run in the interests of the public wholst under investor management only interedts served will be those of the investors.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Depends what aspects of the public interest we are talking about here. I don't think a lot of taxpayers will be too keen on having their tax money spent on nationalising a failing and poorly run company - probably best to keep it out of public ownership (at least for now) if the bond holders and investors think that they can deal with the situation.

As our resident Thatcherite, perhaps you could expound on the privatisation of Thames Water with particular reference to the role of Macquarie. Was it the wrong type of privatisation?

 

[CXRAndy]

Oooh, it the 'Thing' has learnt how capitalism works!

He's a step ahead of some people on here then.

Certainly more than CR.

From what I can gather

 

[Stevo 666]

Taxpayers are paying for it all anyway. Investors run the company and they'll be taking money out for themselves. Government run the company and they won't. Poorly run under private ownership does not mean it can't be run better under public ownership.

At least under Government ownership it will be run in the interests of the public wholst under investor management only interedts served will be those of the investors.

Taxpayers are currently paying for it how? Thames Water customers might be a bit narked though, given how much their bills are going up.

As for the government running a business well, I admire your optimism, although TBH in this case they might have a fighting chance.

 

[Stevo 666]

As our resident Thatcherite, perhaps you could expound on the privatisation of Thames Water with particular reference to the role of Macquarie. Was it the wrong type of privatisation?

There are well run companies and badly run companies - this is one of the latter. How does it mean public ownership is the answer?

 

[Psamathe]

Taxpayers are currently paying for it how? Thames Water customers might be a bit narked though, given how much their bills are going up

Meant to say bill payers (got tax on the brain at the moment as just going through "dealings" with HMRC)