As long as the shareholders don't suffer.

[C R]

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.

No, the it is referring to the troll blob.

 

[Stevo 666]

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

OK, I was wondering...

Although in the end, if it goes into public ownership and continues to make losses, all that will happen is that some of cost of keeping it going shifts from their customers to the taxpaying public. And that aside from the cost of the govt acquiring it.

 

[Psamathe]

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

Government can appoint people with appropriate capability to run the company with a focus on provision of a water/sweage system rather than a focus on returns for investors.

Public are paying anyway so money taken out by investors is money that can't be spent on much needed infrastructure and lower bills.

Money borrowed with Government security is far lower risk than money borrowed by a company in Thames Water's financial state so investment under Government/nationalised will be a lot cheaper.

 

[Psamathe]

No, the it is referring to the troll blob.

I was confused as resident troll hasn't posted to this thread for months. (if ever?).

Unless the forum "ignore" functionality has changed as normally posts still show but with "ignored ..." showing instead of posts yet nothing like that.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

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

Well you haven't answered my question and you've thrown in a non sequitur as a distraction. Still I expected nothing better from you.

 

[C R]

I was confused as resident troll hasn't posted to this thread for months. (if ever?).

Unless the forum "ignore" functionality has changed as normally posts still show but with "ignored ..." showing instead of posts yet nothing like that.

It is posting, I was replying to it without quoting it.

 

[Psamathe]

OK, I was wondering...

Although in the end, if it goes into public ownership and continues to make losses, all that will happen is that some of cost of keeping it going shifts from their customers to the taxpaying public. And that aside from the cost of the govt acquiring it.

Most paying customers are taxpayers. But more tax is paid by those with more money where water meters don't adjust charges according to wealth.

Thames Water's is worth nothing. Gov. can buy it for virtually nothing - already posted multiple links from reliable sources about how valuations by Thames Water of their own value are complete fantasy and Labour are showing their lack of business experience in accepting Thames Water's self-valuation.

 

[BoldonLad]

Government can appoint people with appropriate capability to run the company with a focus on provision of a water/sweage system rather than a focus on returns for investors.

Public are paying anyway so money taken out by investors is money that can't be spent on much needed infrastructure and lower bills.

Money borrowed with Government security is far lower risk than money borrowed by a company in Thames Water's financial state so investment under Government/nationalised will be a lot cheaper.

Government could, but, will they? Past performance does not suggest yes.

There is more than one way to “take money out”, and/or increase costs.

Ms Reeves future actions may change that equation.

 

[Psamathe]

It is posting, I was replying to it without quoting it.

Gosh. Ignore functionality improved. If I briefly "unignore" its posts reappear. Ignore and they disappear. Good.

Of course might be I've just learnt more about the "ignore" function (only 2 people on my list).

Apologies for misunderstanding.

 

[Psamathe]

Government could, but, will they? Past performance does not suggest yes.

There is more than one way to “take money out”, and/or increase costs.

Ms Reeves future actions may change that equation.

Today (radio I think) that Reeves doesn't want to because Labour backbenchers want full nationalisation and temporary special administration would increase pressure to fully nationalise. But Starmer has gotten scared if backbenchers and started undermining Reeves (taking specialist economists into his No 10 team under his control). Plus backbenchers now appreciate their power over Starmer.

 

[Stevo 666]

Most paying customers are taxpayers. But more tax is paid by those with more money where water meters don't adjust charges according to wealth.

Thames Water's is worth nothing. Gov. can buy it for virtually nothing - already posted multiple links from reliable sources about how valuations by Thames Water of their own value are complete fantasy and Labour are showing their lack of business experience in accepting Thames Water's self-valuation.

Yes they are, but the majority of taxpayers are not customers of the company so why should they pay to prop it up?

 

[Stevo 666]

Well you haven't answered my question and you've thrown in a non sequitur as a distraction. Still I expected nothing better from you.

Not the wrong type of privatisation in my view. Add that to what I said above bout badly run companies.

Now you answer my question.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Not the wrong type of privatisation in my view. Add that to what I said above bout badly run companies.

There appears to be a contradiction within those two sentences.

 

[Psamathe]

Yes they are, but the majority of taxpayers are not customers of the company so why should they pay to prop it up?

Because it's a public service people cannot live without. Like the NHS, etc. a core public provision.

The issues don't only relate to Thames Water. They might be the worst but most others are failing and should be in public ownership.

More justification water to be public ownership than rail system (both and others should never have been nationalised).

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

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

With the water companies that is quite easily explained, it's not a traditional bussiness yet currently companies like Thames water have been overloaded with debts with unreasonable growth prospects.
Goverment ownership could become better run because they can cap salaries. spending etc. etc. There is an clear example in the Netherlands, the water companies are divided into drinking water companies and waste water companies, the drinking water(which is also tap water) is goverment run, has been very stable in price and of high quality,The waste water(not goverment owned same as here) is about the same mess we see here.