Starmer's vision quest

[First Aspect]

More that I wanted a reply from the person who I addressed the question to. But you can have a gold star for that one.

Jees you must be fun at the pub. Bilateral discussions only.

 

[Stevo 666]

Jees you must be fun at the pub. Bilateral discussions only.

Missing the point as well as Brian I see.

 

[TailWindHome]

I knew it a while back.

Yeah, but good to see you admit it.

Tory budget, Bad for Britain.

 

[Stevo 666]

Should have gone to Specsavers.

You should, I agree. Bob likes to quote me as he does try to get my attention, but I can't see where he addresses my questions and a quick look back over the last few pages shows nothing. Feel fee to quote the post where he answers my questions and may be worth having a look first at what I asked him.

 

[Stevo 666]

Yeah, but good to see you admit it.

Tory budget, Bad for Britain.

I guess CCNCAP will be quoting the Truss budget for decades. Let's see what the next Labour budget brings.

 

[First Aspect]

Missing the point as well as Brian I see.

I'm only going to correspond with Brian in respect of this matter.

 

[Psamathe]

I still don't understand why Glasman and Mahmood don't jump ship to Reform. Or why Starmer listens to them.

View attachment 15228

Sadly yes, though on the other hand, maybe he doesn't really know what he believes in, other than polling and focus groups.

I've come to the conclusion he isn't particularly capable if thinking and hence relies on others.

Everybody is free to change their views maybe as they gain experience, input from others, etc. but they are their views. Starmer was quite happy to serve in a serior role under Corbyn and be subject to collective responsibilitry as directed by Corbyn's agenda). Then suddenly there was the opportunity for him to get the top spot and it's radical change of "views".

Starmer's directing Mahmood to what they are collectively doing maybe puts Starmer into the Reform agenda as well?

Certainly Glasman, Starmer & Mahmood (et al.) are probably helping Burhnam's prospects with his proposed return to Labour principles.

 

[icowden]

You should, I agree. Bob likes to quote me as he does try to get my attention, but I can't see where he addresses my questions and a quick look back over the last few pages shows nothing. Feel fee to quote the post where he answers my questions and may be worth having a look first at what I asked him.

I have done several times. As I said - you should have gone to SpecSavers

@Stevo 666 we've been here before and you copped out like you always do.
Tell me the amount of debt Thames Water had at privatisation. Tell me how much debt they have now. Then explain why privatisation has been so successful for customers of Thames Water.
If you can manage that one we can move on to other areas of the country and other utilities.

This is the answer to your question. It is in the form of a question to you. One that you have been pretending not to understand for several pages now.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Well Thames Water, like all the privatisations would have had no debt at privatisation.
It doesn't mean that the water utility was in good shape at privatisation.
In fact, the sewers were crumbling, water leaks were common, and the rivers and beaches polluted.
There had been minimal maintenance and improvement of the infrastructure since the victorians built the network - so public ownership really wasn't a success by the time privatisation happened.

 

[First Aspect]

Well Thames Water, like all the privatisations would have had no debt at privatisation.
It doesn't mean that the water utility was in good shape at privatisation.
In fact, the sewers were crumbling, water leaks were common, and the rivers and beaches polluted.
There had been minimal maintenance and improvement of the infrastructure since the victorians built the network - so public ownership really wasn't a success by the time privatisation happened.

Well at least some money managed to p
leak out to investors, in that case. Silver linings.

 

[briantrumpet]

Well Thames Water, like all the privatisations would have had no debt at privatisation.
It doesn't mean that the water utility was in good shape at privatisation.
In fact, the sewers were crumbling, water leaks were common, and the rivers and beaches polluted.
There had been minimal maintenance and improvement of the infrastructure since the victorians built the network - so public ownership really wasn't a success by the time privatisation happened.

IIRC, water bills sharply increased after privatisation "to pay for the necessary investment after decades of underinvestment"... that was part of the pretext of privatisation.

 

[First Aspect]

IIRC, water bills sharply increased after privatisation "to pay for the necessary investment after decades of underinvestment"... that was part of the pretext of privatisation.

Literally, the investors have been paid for their investments. Was that quid pro quo not made clear at the outset?

 

[Dorset Boy]

There was a lot of investment in the water infrastructure in the years post privatisation to reduce the leaks, fix the network etc.
Currently the issue with the water companies isn't privatisation per se, it's a useless weak regulator, that if it has any teeth, it has no idea how to use them.
Set targets and standards, and state how many need to be met at any one time.
Then if not being met, suspend payments of dividends and board level remuneration until such time as the standards are met.
It isn't difficult in principle.

 

[First Aspect]

I see Starmer has decisively deferred the fuel duty rise for a few months. This decisive action will surely stop all debate in the matter.

 

[First Aspect]

There was a lot of investment in the water infrastructure in the years post privatisation to reduce the leaks, fix the network etc.
Currently the issue with the water companies isn't privatisation per se, it's a useless weak regulator, that if it has any teeth, it has no idea how to use them.
Set targets and standards, and state how many need to be met at any one time.
Then if not being met, suspend payments of dividends and board level remuneration until such time as the standards are met.
It isn't difficult in principle.

The regulator is jobs for the boys, as far as I can tell. Ex water company people more or less siding with their old friends and employers. "I mean I know you let shoot into the river on 250 days when it only rained for 50 and only heavily that one time, and strictly speaking that's not okay, but I know how it is and sometimes you just have no choice."