Starmer's vision quest

[First Aspect]

Initially there was a lot of private investment in the infrastructure, sewers were repaired, as were water mains. None of that was happening under public ownership.
As I have explained before, privatisation per se isn't the issue - weak regulation in the last 15+ years is the issue.

What was your solution to fixing the crumbling water infrastructure at the time of privatisation given governments hadn't bothered to maintain the system for 70+ years?

I think we should have sold them so that someone else could not invest. Then 30 years later we could start to buy them back at a cheaper cost than had anyone invested, and use the savings to pay for investment. Providing we didn't sell them off cheaply that's sound business.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

And you clearly think the water utilities were in great shape at the time of privatisation, and the seas and rivers were clean then?
We had crumbling water infrastructure at the time due to chronic under-investment by all governments over the previous 70+ years.
But ignore that fact if you must.
Nothing was going to improve if left under public ownership.

You imply that privatisation was carried out to improve infrastructure. The reality is it was carried out for purely ideological reasons. Neo Liberal, small government Thatcherite ideology.

Here's Google on the investment

Debt and Shareholder Payouts: Critics argue that this increased investment has been primarily financed by private-sector debt and higher customer bills, rather than by fresh funds from shareholders. Campaigns such as We Own It and studies from the University of Greenwich highlight that while companies have invested in networks, they have simultaneously accumulated significant collective debt and paid out tens of billions in shareholder dividends. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

 

[bobzmyunkle]

And here's the Guardian on the Thames water bailout

Creditors, who provided the company with £3bn worth of emergency funding last year, have demanded a write-off of tens of millions of pounds in fines issued to Thames for dumping sewage in waterways. They have also asked for a reduction in environmental investment until 2030.

Tougher regulator? I'm not holding my breath.

 

[icowden]

As I say, that is a total failure of regulation.
We see the same in other industries where service standards have been allowed to plummet by the regulators, and insufficient penalties applied to offenders.

I agree. Do you think there is any connection between the Government privatising core industries, the Government appointing toothless regulators and Government ministers profiting from the private companies via investments in Hedge funds or shares?

Just asking...

 

[Dorset Boy]

I agree. Do you think there is any connection between the Government privatising core industries, the Government appointing toothless regulators and Government ministers profiting from the private companies via investments in Hedge funds or shares?

Just asking...

More than a little unfair to single out possible investments by MPs given almost all of us will also have investments in those companies through our pensions.
I will also find you a tin foil hat for your conspiracy theories.
You are implying that all shades of government have ignored the issue of regulation which patently isn't true.

 

[Psamathe]

What was your solution to fixing the crumbling water infrastructure at the time of privatisation given governments hadn't bothered to maintain the system for 70+ years?

My impression is that investment is needed to address the infrastructure needs. Only income to pay for these works is from the customers. "Investors" don't give money, they "invest" it expecting more back than they put in.

Thus us customers can pay the £<x>bn needed for infrastructure under public ownership or we can pay the £<x> bn infrastructure plus £<y> bn returns to investors under private ownership.

End of the day we are all paying the infrastructure costs, question is do we additionally want to pay for the "investor" returns on top of that.

Government may have mismanaged in the past but that does not mean they would be being mismanaged today. Given the outcry about our open sewers (that used to be our rivers) Government would have acted to fix some time back whereas private water companies are wittering on about customers paying, investors avoiding them going bancrupt whilst the Government pretend to hold then to account whilst everything is on hold pending them finding money (probably ultimately from us).

 

[Pblakeney]

Government may have mismanaged in the past but that does not mean they would be being mismanaged today.

Given the shambles that is/was HS2 then I think it is safe to say, yes it would.
That's not to say private would be better than public, or vice versa. #Eeyore

 

[Psamathe]

I think we should have sold them so that someone else could not invest. Then 30 years later we could start to buy them back at a cheaper cost than had anyone invested, and use the savings to pay for investment. Providing we didn't sell them off cheaply that's sound business.

When the current Government witter on about it being too expensive to re-nationalise the water companies they are apparently talking rubbish, just repeating what the water company lobbyists have been telling them based on the water companies valuation of themselves. Water companies keep quoting £99 bn but this figure is from a Think Tank paid for by the Water companies. The US private equity company KKR offered a £4bn injection of equity to take over Thames Water, when its supposed regulatory capital value is nearer £20bn.

Oner method: Apparently Government could re-nationalise them very quickly and at no cost. That the water companies are routinely breaking the law means that their infrastructure works requirement is a company liability and one they don't currently include on the balance sheets/accounts. All Gov. needs to do is to require they include all liabilities ... and immediately they are no longer viable and "have gone bust" ... except being who they are they cannot go "bust" and when they do their ownership revets to the Government.

 

[Psamathe]

Government may have mismanaged in the past but that does not mean they would be being mismanaged today.

Given the shambles that is/was HS2 then I think it is safe to say, yes it would.
That's not to say private would be better than public, or vice versa. #Eeyore

One difference between HS2 and Water is for the majority of the country they are not impacted by HS2, it's just a number announced and distracted from asap. Whereas water is something we are writing out cheques for routinely, people getting ill from swimming in rivers, beaches polluted, streets wash with toilet paper and poo. It impacts people on a daily basis so public would be a lot less tolerant of failings.

Maybe a bit like the NHS where accumulation of waiting lists because a major contributing factor in the last General Election and the party responsible losing big time.

 

[Pblakeney]

My point was that this country appears to be incapable of managing any major infrastructure without foreign involvement.
And that foreign involvement inevitably wants a ROI.
Pick a case, any case. Water, NHS, HS2, roads, rail, defence…

 

[icowden]

More than a little unfair to single out possible investments by MPs given almost all of us will also have investments in those companies through our pensions.
I will also find you a tin foil hat for your conspiracy theories.
You are implying that all shades of government have ignored the issue of regulation which patently isn't true.

While direct ownership of water utilities is not currently disclosed, campaigners and parliamentary bodies have raised concerns over the
"revolving door" between Westminster and corporate lobbying firms that represent or work closely with the water sector. [1]

While individual Conservative MPs do not directly operate hedge funds controlling water companies, several have faced scrutiny over shareholdings or financial ties to firms that hold major stakes in the UK water industry. [1, 2, 3]

• Sir Robert Goodwill: Declared a share portfolio that includes investments in Pennon Group (the parent company of South West Water).
• Jonathan Djanogly: Declared shareholdings managed via a blind trust, which have previously included investments across various utility sectors.
• Graham Edwards: While not an MP, the former Conservative Party Treasurer is the co-founder of H2O Water Holdings, which owns Bristol Water and has secured significant government contracts. [1, 2, 4]

Furthermore, some Conservative MPs have drawn criticism for their financial links to water industry investment firms. For instance, Theresa Villiers held shares in Shell (which has extensive infrastructure interests tied to energy and utilities) while serving as Environment Secretary. []
MPs are only mandated to register shareholdings worth more than \(\pounds 70,000\), or those exceeding a 15% stake in a company. They are not required by Parliament to declare the dividend income generated from those shares. [1]

 

[TailWindHome]

Harsh but fair.

Not worthy of the hate imo, just a pointless 2 years

 

[TailWindHome]

Breakfast clubs not mentioned

 

[Ian H]

That's my understanding too. It seems that what will happen is that Russian crude already on its way will be used, not that Russian crude will continue to be allowed in.

Interetingly, this morning's YouGov questionnaire included questions about Russian sanctions. I wonder who commisioned that.

 

[BoldonLad]

Why would doing something as radical as free bus travel for all be constrained by what currently happens though? At the end of the day it's not something that will ever happen but we all have things that we feel would be beneficial to society that will never get introduced. From what I can work out, passengers currently spend around a total of £4 billion a year on bus fares in England (with around £2.6 billion supported by Government) so the numbers are relatively small in terms of government spending.

No idea, but, our Politicians have managed to screw up a small scale version of it, so, why would anyone assume they will do better with a large scale model?