Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently they need to increase customer charges by 40% to pay for investment in the infrastructure... that's disgraceful and should be the responsibility of the shareholders " That's the way this country is going.. greedy shareholders rake the cash in while billpayers shoulder the burdon.. even when sewege is released into the rivers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently they need to increase customer charges by 40% to pay for investment in the infrastructure... that's disgraceful and should be the responsibility of the shareholders That's the way this country is going.. greedy shareholders rake the cash in while billpayers shoulder the burdon.. even when sewege is released into the rivers" When investment is required, some or all of the annual operating profits are used at the expense of a shareholder dividend. They cannot be allowed to raise charges whilst continuing with dividends for a utility | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently they need to increase customer charges by 40% to pay for investment in the infrastructure... that's disgraceful and should be the responsibility of the shareholders That's the way this country is going.. greedy shareholders rake the cash in while billpayers shoulder the burdon.. even when sewege is released into the rivers When investment is required, some or all of the annual operating profits are used at the expense of a shareholder dividend. They cannot be allowed to raise charges whilst continuing with dividends for a utility " Did Thames Water specifically pay that much dividends though? They are in massive debt. They say they haven't paid dividends in the last five years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently they need to increase customer charges by 40% to pay for investment in the infrastructure... that's disgraceful and should be the responsibility of the shareholders That's the way this country is going.. greedy shareholders rake the cash in while billpayers shoulder the burdon.. even when sewege is released into the rivers When investment is required, some or all of the annual operating profits are used at the expense of a shareholder dividend. They cannot be allowed to raise charges whilst continuing with dividends for a utility Did Thames Water specifically pay that much dividends though? They are in massive debt. They say they haven't paid dividends in the last five years." But they did pay divis for many years from their “profits” while taking out loans to fund infrastructure. Now they can’t afford the loans. Perhaps the loans should have been smaller and more of their profits used for investment thus paying smaller dividends. When the Govt privatised water they wrote off all their debts. So they were starting from a debt free basis. Exec pay also needs to be looked at. Some people made bank with what was really an unprofitable business (inc shareholders). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I imagine there is significant confusion in budgetary responsibility and understanding in utilities such as water. The Totex from water companies has doubled since privatisation, with the nature of this industry making Capex account for the majority of the Totex. Also, the amount of investment needed is so high it needs shareholders to invest, and they wont do that if dividends are not going to be paid, no shareholders no way of raising funds for investment. Nationalising the water industry would add more taxes, we become the shareholders but getting a dividend is not on the cards and neither is a guaranteed better service. " If Totex has doubled since privatisation then one has to wonder why anyone thought they would be viable commercial entity in the first place. Those shareholders needed to do more due diligence as they got sold a turkey! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I imagine there is significant confusion in budgetary responsibility and understanding in utilities such as water. The Totex from water companies has doubled since privatisation, with the nature of this industry making Capex account for the majority of the Totex. Also, the amount of investment needed is so high it needs shareholders to invest, and they wont do that if dividends are not going to be paid, no shareholders no way of raising funds for investment. Nationalising the water industry would add more taxes, we become the shareholders but getting a dividend is not on the cards and neither is a guaranteed better service. If Totex has doubled since privatisation then one has to wonder why anyone thought they would be viable commercial entity in the first place. Those shareholders needed to do more due diligence as they got sold a turkey!" Not really, Thames water invested a vast amount, but as I said the bulk of the investment came through Capex and that is why they are in trouble now but that also provided an environment to pay dividends. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I imagine there is significant confusion in budgetary responsibility and understanding in utilities such as water. The Totex from water companies has doubled since privatisation, with the nature of this industry making Capex account for the majority of the Totex. Also, the amount of investment needed is so high it needs shareholders to invest, and they wont do that if dividends are not going to be paid, no shareholders no way of raising funds for investment. Nationalising the water industry would add more taxes, we become the shareholders but getting a dividend is not on the cards and neither is a guaranteed better service. If Totex has doubled since privatisation then one has to wonder why anyone thought they would be viable commercial entity in the first place. Those shareholders needed to do more due diligence as they got sold a turkey! Not really, Thames water invested a vast amount, but as I said the bulk of the investment came through Capex and that is why they are in trouble now but that also provided an environment to pay dividends. " When the water utilities were privatised, the priority was potable water quality which was deteriorating fast. Huge investment elevated the Uk to top 10 drinking water quality worldwide. Sewage is complicated. Firstly, the legacy pipework is Victorian and unique in that in combines sewage and storm water. Secondly, climate change has changed water hydraulics. at times of flooding (now commonplace) sewage flows are reversed and spills occur. It's hugely complicated and costly to fix. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Apparently they need to increase customer charges by 40% to pay for investment in the infrastructure... that's disgraceful and should be the responsibility of the shareholders " If it makes you feel better I'm sure they'll announce record profits next year though Honestly, if we could just grab a few of the top MPs and CEOs and string them up as a message to the rest I think that could work Like, not even a lot. Just enough to send a message | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I imagine there is significant confusion in budgetary responsibility and understanding in utilities such as water. The Totex from water companies has doubled since privatisation, with the nature of this industry making Capex account for the majority of the Totex. Also, the amount of investment needed is so high it needs shareholders to invest, and they wont do that if dividends are not going to be paid, no shareholders no way of raising funds for investment. Nationalising the water industry would add more taxes, we become the shareholders but getting a dividend is not on the cards and neither is a guaranteed better service. If Totex has doubled since privatisation then one has to wonder why anyone thought they would be viable commercial entity in the first place. Those shareholders needed to do more due diligence as they got sold a turkey! Not really, Thames water invested a vast amount, but as I said the bulk of the investment came through Capex and that is why they are in trouble now but that also provided an environment to pay dividends. When the water utilities were privatised, the priority was potable water quality which was deteriorating fast. Huge investment elevated the Uk to top 10 drinking water quality worldwide. Sewage is complicated. Firstly, the legacy pipework is Victorian and unique in that in combines sewage and storm water. Secondly, climate change has changed water hydraulics. at times of flooding (now commonplace) sewage flows are reversed and spills occur. It's hugely complicated and costly to fix." I have no doubt the management of water is complex, and expensive. How Thames water funded the investments is somewhat questionable | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I imagine there is significant confusion in budgetary responsibility and understanding in utilities such as water. The Totex from water companies has doubled since privatisation, with the nature of this industry making Capex account for the majority of the Totex. Also, the amount of investment needed is so high it needs shareholders to invest, and they wont do that if dividends are not going to be paid, no shareholders no way of raising funds for investment. Nationalising the water industry would add more taxes, we become the shareholders but getting a dividend is not on the cards and neither is a guaranteed better service. If Totex has doubled since privatisation then one has to wonder why anyone thought they would be viable commercial entity in the first place. Those shareholders needed to do more due diligence as they got sold a turkey! Not really, Thames water invested a vast amount, but as I said the bulk of the investment came through Capex and that is why they are in trouble now but that also provided an environment to pay dividends. When the water utilities were privatised, the priority was potable water quality which was deteriorating fast. Huge investment elevated the Uk to top 10 drinking water quality worldwide. Sewage is complicated. Firstly, the legacy pipework is Victorian and unique in that in combines sewage and storm water. Secondly, climate change has changed water hydraulics. at times of flooding (now commonplace) sewage flows are reversed and spills occur. It's hugely complicated and costly to fix. I have no doubt the management of water is complex, and expensive. How Thames water funded the investments is somewhat questionable " Indeed. It now seems TW borrowed money at rock bottom interest rates and are now struggling to service their debt. Climate change and flooding is exacerbating their plight. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I imagine there is significant confusion in budgetary responsibility and understanding in utilities such as water. The Totex from water companies has doubled since privatisation, with the nature of this industry making Capex account for the majority of the Totex. Also, the amount of investment needed is so high it needs shareholders to invest, and they wont do that if dividends are not going to be paid, no shareholders no way of raising funds for investment. Nationalising the water industry would add more taxes, we become the shareholders but getting a dividend is not on the cards and neither is a guaranteed better service. If Totex has doubled since privatisation then one has to wonder why anyone thought they would be viable commercial entity in the first place. Those shareholders needed to do more due diligence as they got sold a turkey! Not really, Thames water invested a vast amount, but as I said the bulk of the investment came through Capex and that is why they are in trouble now but that also provided an environment to pay dividends. When the water utilities were privatised, the priority was potable water quality which was deteriorating fast. Huge investment elevated the Uk to top 10 drinking water quality worldwide. Sewage is complicated. Firstly, the legacy pipework is Victorian and unique in that in combines sewage and storm water. Secondly, climate change has changed water hydraulics. at times of flooding (now commonplace) sewage flows are reversed and spills occur. It's hugely complicated and costly to fix. I have no doubt the management of water is complex, and expensive. How Thames water funded the investments is somewhat questionable Indeed. It now seems TW borrowed money at rock bottom interest rates and are now struggling to service their debt. Climate change and flooding is exacerbating their plight. " Kemble water and the consortium are going to need to take the hit or lose their holdings, I’m not sure how that would be agreed though, as the consortium is likely to have very differing views, especially Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System. Right now it looks like the least favoured option to nationalise or take into temporary administration, I think personally that is due to the complexity of the ownership, but my preference would be to temporarily take ownership. Ultimately the government needs to address the ownership and models being used by consortiums to take over utilities like this, and ensure future financial strategies are regulated in the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I imagine there is significant confusion in budgetary responsibility and understanding in utilities such as water. The Totex from water companies has doubled since privatisation, with the nature of this industry making Capex account for the majority of the Totex. Also, the amount of investment needed is so high it needs shareholders to invest, and they wont do that if dividends are not going to be paid, no shareholders no way of raising funds for investment. Nationalising the water industry would add more taxes, we become the shareholders but getting a dividend is not on the cards and neither is a guaranteed better service. If Totex has doubled since privatisation then one has to wonder why anyone thought they would be viable commercial entity in the first place. Those shareholders needed to do more due diligence as they got sold a turkey! Not really, Thames water invested a vast amount, but as I said the bulk of the investment came through Capex and that is why they are in trouble now but that also provided an environment to pay dividends. When the water utilities were privatised, the priority was potable water quality which was deteriorating fast. Huge investment elevated the Uk to top 10 drinking water quality worldwide. Sewage is complicated. Firstly, the legacy pipework is Victorian and unique in that in combines sewage and storm water. Secondly, climate change has changed water hydraulics. at times of flooding (now commonplace) sewage flows are reversed and spills occur. It's hugely complicated and costly to fix. I have no doubt the management of water is complex, and expensive. How Thames water funded the investments is somewhat questionable Indeed. It now seems TW borrowed money at rock bottom interest rates and are now struggling to service their debt. Climate change and flooding is exacerbating their plight. Kemble water and the consortium are going to need to take the hit or lose their holdings, I’m not sure how that would be agreed though, as the consortium is likely to have very differing views, especially Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System. Right now it looks like the least favoured option to nationalise or take into temporary administration, I think personally that is due to the complexity of the ownership, but my preference would be to temporarily take ownership. Ultimately the government needs to address the ownership and models being used by consortiums to take over utilities like this, and ensure future financial strategies are regulated in the UK." Yes all of the above, plus an integrated plan of national water management that retains upland water with designated flood areas. As for sewage, the issue of spilt solids is the least of our worries. All the harmful stuff in effluent is soluble and cannot be removed by filtration. So salts, nitrates, sugars, cleaning chemicals, drugs (prescription and illegal) all wash into our rivers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I imagine there is significant confusion in budgetary responsibility and understanding in utilities such as water. The Totex from water companies has doubled since privatisation, with the nature of this industry making Capex account for the majority of the Totex. Also, the amount of investment needed is so high it needs shareholders to invest, and they wont do that if dividends are not going to be paid, no shareholders no way of raising funds for investment. Nationalising the water industry would add more taxes, we become the shareholders but getting a dividend is not on the cards and neither is a guaranteed better service. If Totex has doubled since privatisation then one has to wonder why anyone thought they would be viable commercial entity in the first place. Those shareholders needed to do more due diligence as they got sold a turkey! Not really, Thames water invested a vast amount, but as I said the bulk of the investment came through Capex and that is why they are in trouble now but that also provided an environment to pay dividends. When the water utilities were privatised, the priority was potable water quality which was deteriorating fast. Huge investment elevated the Uk to top 10 drinking water quality worldwide. Sewage is complicated. Firstly, the legacy pipework is Victorian and unique in that in combines sewage and storm water. Secondly, climate change has changed water hydraulics. at times of flooding (now commonplace) sewage flows are reversed and spills occur. It's hugely complicated and costly to fix. I have no doubt the management of water is complex, and expensive. How Thames water funded the investments is somewhat questionable Indeed. It now seems TW borrowed money at rock bottom interest rates and are now struggling to service their debt. Climate change and flooding is exacerbating their plight. " Well we are always being criticised for not living within our means. Should have paid lower exec salaries, lower dividends, used more of their pre-tax profits for investment (lowering post tax profit ergo divis) and borrowed less. But of course private sector companies are all so much better run and more efficient! Maybe, just maybe, certain things should not be considered commercial commodities? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever happened to the caveat that 'the value of investments can go down as well as up'? Why should investors in privatised former public utilities be guaranteed a gravy train seat for life?" Absolutely this 
Plus “your capital is at risk”
It’s almost like investors in privatised state organisations believe the state should still be there to provide a safety blanket. That socialism is ok when it bails out capitalism! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever happened to the caveat that 'the value of investments can go down as well as up'? Why should investors in privatised former public utilities be guaranteed a gravy train seat for life?" They shouldn't. But investors take a risk with their capital in return for dividend payments in good years. Without some return, they will withdraw their investment and the company will founder. That's what's happening with TW. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever happened to the caveat that 'the value of investments can go down as well as up'? Why should investors in privatised former public utilities be guaranteed a gravy train seat for life? They shouldn't. But investors take a risk with their capital in return for dividend payments in good years. Without some return, they will withdraw their investment and the company will founder. That's what's happening with TW." Maybr shouldn’t have been privatised? Just saying  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever happened to the caveat that 'the value of investments can go down as well as up'? Why should investors in privatised former public utilities be guaranteed a gravy train seat for life? They shouldn't. But investors take a risk with their capital in return for dividend payments in good years. Without some return, they will withdraw their investment and the company will founder. That's what's happening with TW. Maybr shouldn’t have been privatised? Just saying "This all ties in nicely with 'half of our problems have come about over decades'. Let's all blame Sunak though, it must be his fault somehow | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever happened to the caveat that 'the value of investments can go down as well as up'? Why should investors in privatised former public utilities be guaranteed a gravy train seat for life? They shouldn't. But investors take a risk with their capital in return for dividend payments in good years. Without some return, they will withdraw their investment and the company will founder. That's what's happening with TW. Maybr shouldn’t have been privatised? Just saying "How would we have met the requirements for investment in our water to bring it up to European standards, it was not the best under national ownership. There is an issue with regulation, it needs fixing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever happened to the caveat that 'the value of investments can go down as well as up'? Why should investors in privatised former public utilities be guaranteed a gravy train seat for life? They shouldn't. But investors take a risk with their capital in return for dividend payments in good years. Without some return, they will withdraw their investment and the company will founder. That's what's happening with TW. Maybr shouldn’t have been privatised? Just saying
This all ties in nicely with 'half of our problems have come about over decades'. Let's all blame Sunak though, it must be his fault somehow "Who has said that? Johnson/Truss/Sunak have certainly exacerbated problems. To be fair they did have the pandemic and war in Ukraine to deal with (but some fail to give Labour a pass for the financial crash so maybe that cancels out all passes). You could keep going back forever to identify cause and effect on national economies so everything is arguably the fault of everyone who came before! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever happened to the caveat that 'the value of investments can go down as well as up'? Why should investors in privatised former public utilities be guaranteed a gravy train seat for life? They shouldn't. But investors take a risk with their capital in return for dividend payments in good years. Without some return, they will withdraw their investment and the company will founder. That's what's happening with TW. Maybr shouldn’t have been privatised? Just saying "You can take that view. It depends on your ideology I guess, and who you trust to run things efficiently. Government handling of e.g. defence procurement is beyond incompetent. The win-win is a model between central government and private enterprise that works. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever happened to the caveat that 'the value of investments can go down as well as up'? Why should investors in privatised former public utilities be guaranteed a gravy train seat for life? They shouldn't. But investors take a risk with their capital in return for dividend payments in good years. Without some return, they will withdraw their investment and the company will founder. That's what's happening with TW. Maybr shouldn’t have been privatised? Just saying
You can take that view. It depends on your ideology I guess, and who you trust to run things efficiently. Government handling of e.g. defence procurement is beyond incompetent. The win-win is a model between central government and private enterprise that works."My ideology is pretty much down the centre for most things. Hybrid and compromise to get the best results. I think some things should be national infrastructure and national assets paid for out of our taxes and run for our benefit. In areas where true competition is possible and therefore consumer choice, then Govt should be nowhere near it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever happened to the caveat that 'the value of investments can go down as well as up'? Why should investors in privatised former public utilities be guaranteed a gravy train seat for life? They shouldn't. But investors take a risk with their capital in return for dividend payments in good years. Without some return, they will withdraw their investment and the company will founder. That's what's happening with TW. Maybr shouldn’t have been privatised? Just saying
This all ties in nicely with 'half of our problems have come about over decades'. Let's all blame Sunak though, it must be his fault somehow
Who has said that? Johnson/Truss/Sunak have certainly exacerbated problems. To be fair they did have the pandemic and war in Ukraine to deal with (but some fail to give Labour a pass for the financial crash so maybe that cancels out all passes).
You could keep going back forever to identify cause and effect on national economies so everything is arguably the fault of everyone who came before!"Not Cameron or May? 14 years of Tory rule, remember? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever happened to the caveat that 'the value of investments can go down as well as up'? Why should investors in privatised former public utilities be guaranteed a gravy train seat for life? They shouldn't. But investors take a risk with their capital in return for dividend payments in good years. Without some return, they will withdraw their investment and the company will founder. That's what's happening with TW. Maybr shouldn’t have been privatised? Just saying
You can take that view. It depends on your ideology I guess, and who you trust to run things efficiently. Government handling of e.g. defence procurement is beyond incompetent. The win-win is a model between central government and private enterprise that works.
My ideology is pretty much down the centre for most things. Hybrid and compromise to get the best results. I think some things should be national infrastructure and national assets paid for out of our taxes and run for our benefit. In areas where true competition is possible and therefore consumer choice, then Govt should be nowhere near it."It looks like you're both in agreement, I also agree. The only way to go about this is to have a mixture of Govt and Private Corp. Personally I'm for centrally funded amenities (not necessarily run). Amenities should not be run for profit. I include travel in this too so trains and buses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever happened to the caveat that 'the value of investments can go down as well as up'? Why should investors in privatised former public utilities be guaranteed a gravy train seat for life? They shouldn't. But investors take a risk with their capital in return for dividend payments in good years. Without some return, they will withdraw their investment and the company will founder. That's what's happening with TW. Maybr shouldn’t have been privatised? Just saying
This all ties in nicely with 'half of our problems have come about over decades'. Let's all blame Sunak though, it must be his fault somehow
Who has said that? Johnson/Truss/Sunak have certainly exacerbated problems. To be fair they did have the pandemic and war in Ukraine to deal with (but some fail to give Labour a pass for the financial crash so maybe that cancels out all passes).
You could keep going back forever to identify cause and effect on national economies so everything is arguably the fault of everyone who came before!
Not Cameron or May?
14 years of Tory rule, remember? "I think problems accelerated under Johnson. Not looked at the figures but sure someone on here has. I couldn’t stand Cameron but he looked positively brilliant in light of Johnson and Truss. May was meh! Caretaker with little conviction or power! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever happened to the caveat that 'the value of investments can go down as well as up'? Why should investors in privatised former public utilities be guaranteed a gravy train seat for life? They shouldn't. But investors take a risk with their capital in return for dividend payments in good years. Without some return, they will withdraw their investment and the company will founder. That's what's happening with TW. Maybr shouldn’t have been privatised? Just saying
This all ties in nicely with 'half of our problems have come about over decades'. Let's all blame Sunak though, it must be his fault somehow
Who has said that? Johnson/Truss/Sunak have certainly exacerbated problems. To be fair they did have the pandemic and war in Ukraine to deal with (but some fail to give Labour a pass for the financial crash so maybe that cancels out all passes).
You could keep going back forever to identify cause and effect on national economies so everything is arguably the fault of everyone who came before!
Not Cameron or May?
14 years of Tory rule, remember?
I think problems accelerated under Johnson. Not looked at the figures but sure someone on here has.
I couldn’t stand Cameron but he looked positively brilliant in light of Johnson and Truss. May was meh! Caretaker with little conviction or power!"You're right, May had no hope. Cameron was very underwhelming, not actually a bad thing in politics I don't think. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Maybr shouldn’t have been privatised? Just saying "I blame Thatcher and, equally, all the greedy selfish voters who lapped up her ideology. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Maybr shouldn’t have been privatised? Just saying
I blame Thatcher and, equally, all the greedy selfish voters who lapped up her ideology."Why do you blame Thatcher for privatising water? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Maybr shouldn’t have been privatised? Just saying
I blame Thatcher and, equally, all the greedy selfish voters who lapped up her ideology."Don't think Thatcher privatized it. But if you read about the state of the country before her, one could understand why people voted for her. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Maybr shouldn’t have been privatised? Just saying
I blame Thatcher and, equally, all the greedy selfish voters who lapped up her ideology.
Why do you blame Thatcher for privatising water? "She was pm when it got sold off | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Maybr shouldn’t have been privatised? Just saying
I blame Thatcher and, equally, all the greedy selfish voters who lapped up her ideology.
Why do you blame Thatcher for privatising water?
She was pm when it got sold off"If enough people stop paying the water bills for swimming in their own crap a change might happen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Maybr shouldn’t have been privatised? Just saying
I blame Thatcher and, equally, all the greedy selfish voters who lapped up her ideology.
Why do you blame Thatcher for privatising water?
She was pm when it got sold off
If enough people stop paying the water bills for swimming in their own crap a change might happen."They should have cancelled the Oxford/Cambridge boat race.. or held it somewhere else | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... I blame Thatcher and, equally, all the greedy selfish voters who lapped up her ideology. Why do you blame Thatcher for privatising water? She was pm when it got sold off" I reckon snatching the milk was her her smartest move. There can't have been that many schoolchildren who liked milk and must have thanked her during their subsequent time as voters! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... I blame Thatcher and, equally, all the greedy selfish voters who lapped up her ideology. Why do you blame Thatcher for privatising water? She was pm when it got sold off I reckon snatching the milk was her her smartest move. There can't have been that many schoolchildren who liked milk and must have thanked her during their subsequent time as voters!" You haven’t answered the question… why do you blame her for the mess of Thames water nearly 40 years later? Why did the government need to privatise in the first place? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... I blame Thatcher and, equally, all the greedy selfish voters who lapped up her ideology. Why do you blame Thatcher for privatising water? She was pm when it got sold off I reckon snatching the milk was her her smartest move. There can't have been that many schoolchildren who liked milk and must have thanked her during their subsequent time as voters! You haven’t answered the question… why do you blame her for the mess of Thames water nearly 40 years later? Why did the government need to privatise in the first place? " It was because the government couldn't afford the massive investment in treatment works to improve the quality of potable water which was deteriorating because of acidic rain. That and Thatcher's ideological mantra of 'small government'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... I blame Thatcher and, equally, all the greedy selfish voters who lapped up her ideology. Why do you blame Thatcher for privatising water? She was pm when it got sold off I reckon snatching the milk was her her smartest move. There can't have been that many schoolchildren who liked milk and must have thanked her during their subsequent time as voters! You haven’t answered the question… why do you blame her for the mess of Thames water nearly 40 years later? Why did the government need to privatise in the first place? It was because the government couldn't afford the massive investment in treatment works to improve the quality of potable water which was deteriorating because of acidic rain. That and Thatcher's ideological mantra of 'small government'." Both examples fit the bill but your first part is the most important in my opinion, the water we had was shocking and fell well below where it needed to be under state control. Often overlooked…. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... I blame Thatcher and, equally, all the greedy selfish voters who lapped up her ideology. Why do you blame Thatcher for privatising water? She was pm when it got sold off I reckon snatching the milk was her her smartest move. There can't have been that many schoolchildren who liked milk and must have thanked her during their subsequent time as voters! You haven’t answered the question… why do you blame her for the mess of Thames water nearly 40 years later? Why did the government need to privatise in the first place? It was because the government couldn't afford the massive investment in treatment works to improve the quality of potable water which was deteriorating because of acidic rain. That and Thatcher's ideological mantra of 'small government'. Both examples fit the bill but your first part is the most important in my opinion, the water we had was shocking and fell well below where it needed to be under state control. Often overlooked…. " Yes it is, as is the fact that we are now in the top 10 countries worldwide for drinking water quality. We always focus on negatives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... I blame Thatcher and, equally, all the greedy selfish voters who lapped up her ideology. Why do you blame Thatcher for privatising water? She was pm when it got sold off I reckon snatching the milk was her her smartest move. There can't have been that many schoolchildren who liked milk and must have thanked her during their subsequent time as voters! You haven’t answered the question… why do you blame her for the mess of Thames water nearly 40 years later? Why did the government need to privatise in the first place? It was because the government couldn't afford the massive investment in treatment works to improve the quality of potable water which was deteriorating because of acidic rain. That and Thatcher's ideological mantra of 'small government'. Both examples fit the bill but your first part is the most important in my opinion, the water we had was shocking and fell well below where it needed to be under state control. Often overlooked…. Yes it is, as is the fact that we are now in the top 10 countries worldwide for drinking water quality. We always focus on negatives." 'We' don't. Some do. The media does, and yet the people who focus on negatives tend to tell the rest of us we're brainwashed by the media  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... I blame Thatcher and, equally, all the greedy selfish voters who lapped up her ideology. Why do you blame Thatcher for privatising water? She was pm when it got sold off I reckon snatching the milk was her her smartest move. There can't have been that many schoolchildren who liked milk and must have thanked her during their subsequent time as voters! You haven’t answered the question… why do you blame her for the mess of Thames water nearly 40 years later? Why did the government need to privatise in the first place? It was because the government couldn't afford the massive investment in treatment works to improve the quality of potable water which was deteriorating because of acidic rain. That and Thatcher's ideological mantra of 'small government'. Both examples fit the bill but your first part is the most important in my opinion, the water we had was shocking and fell well below where it needed to be under state control. Often overlooked…. Yes it is, as is the fact that we are now in the top 10 countries worldwide for drinking water quality. We always focus on negatives." How are we doing on the sewege situation though? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... I blame Thatcher and, equally, all the greedy selfish voters who lapped up her ideology. Why do you blame Thatcher for privatising water? She was pm when it got sold off I reckon snatching the milk was her her smartest move. There can't have been that many schoolchildren who liked milk and must have thanked her during their subsequent time as voters! You haven’t answered the question… why do you blame her for the mess of Thames water nearly 40 years later? Why did the government need to privatise in the first place? It was because the government couldn't afford the massive investment in treatment works to improve the quality of potable water which was deteriorating because of acidic rain. That and Thatcher's ideological mantra of 'small government'. Both examples fit the bill but your first part is the most important in my opinion, the water we had was shocking and fell well below where it needed to be under state control. Often overlooked…. Yes it is, as is the fact that we are now in the top 10 countries worldwide for drinking water quality. We always focus on negatives. How are we doing on the sewege situation though? " Not doing good. But then we've had 2.5 x normal rain this past Winter, so a holistic approach is needed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... I blame Thatcher and, equally, all the greedy selfish voters who lapped up her ideology. Why do you blame Thatcher for privatising water? She was pm when it got sold off I reckon snatching the milk was her her smartest move. There can't have been that many schoolchildren who liked milk and must have thanked her during their subsequent time as voters! You haven’t answered the question… why do you blame her for the mess of Thames water nearly 40 years later? Why did the government need to privatise in the first place? It was because the government couldn't afford the massive investment in treatment works to improve the quality of potable water which was deteriorating because of acidic rain. That and Thatcher's ideological mantra of 'small government'. Both examples fit the bill but your first part is the most important in my opinion, the water we had was shocking and fell well below where it needed to be under state control. Often overlooked…. Yes it is, as is the fact that we are now in the top 10 countries worldwide for drinking water quality. We always focus on negatives. How are we doing on the sewege situation though? Not doing good. But then we've had 2.5 x normal rain this past Winter, so a holistic approach is needed. " The guy in charge of themes water super sewer suggested keeping flood water and sewege separated. Sounds great but also would mean doubling up on drains. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... I blame Thatcher and, equally, all the greedy selfish voters who lapped up her ideology. Why do you blame Thatcher for privatising water? She was pm when it got sold off I reckon snatching the milk was her her smartest move. There can't have been that many schoolchildren who liked milk and must have thanked her during their subsequent time as voters! You haven’t answered the question… why do you blame her for the mess of Thames water nearly 40 years later? Why did the government need to privatise in the first place? " I would say that it's because privstisation.. especially without competition to keep insentive is a disaster. A fortune in executive pay for poor performance plus foreign shareholders who don't get the negative impact of wading through sewege are raking in huge profits while infrastructure falls apart. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" ... I blame Thatcher and, equally, all the greedy selfish voters who lapped up her ideology. Why do you blame Thatcher for privatising water? She was pm when it got sold off I reckon snatching the milk was her her smartest move. There can't have been that many schoolchildren who liked milk and must have thanked her during their subsequent time as voters! You haven’t answered the question… why do you blame her for the mess of Thames water nearly 40 years later? Why did the government need to privatise in the first place? It was because the government couldn't afford the massive investment in treatment works to improve the quality of potable water which was deteriorating because of acidic rain. That and Thatcher's ideological mantra of 'small government'. Both examples fit the bill but your first part is the most important in my opinion, the water we had was shocking and fell well below where it needed to be under state control. Often overlooked…. Yes it is, as is the fact that we are now in the top 10 countries worldwide for drinking water quality. We always focus on negatives. How are we doing on the sewege situation though? Not doing good. But then we've had 2.5 x normal rain this past Winter, so a holistic approach is needed. The guy in charge of themes water super sewer suggested keeping flood water and sewege separated. Sounds great but also would mean doubling up on drains." Yes it would - as they do most other countries. We could build more treatment plants on higher ground too. But do we want a sewage plant on our local hill? The solution is to manage increased rainfall and flooding somehow. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever happened to the caveat that 'the value of investments can go down as well as up'? Why should investors in privatised former public utilities be guaranteed a gravy train seat for life? They shouldn't. But investors take a risk with their capital in return for dividend payments in good years. Without some return, they will withdraw their investment and the company will founder. That's what's happening with TW. Maybr shouldn’t have been privatised? Just saying
You can take that view. It depends on your ideology I guess, and who you trust to run things efficiently. Government handling of e.g. defence procurement is beyond incompetent. The win-win is a model between central government and private enterprise that works.
My ideology is pretty much down the centre for most things. Hybrid and compromise to get the best results. I think some things should be national infrastructure and national assets paid for out of our taxes and run for our benefit. In areas where true competition is possible and therefore consumer choice, then Govt should be nowhere near it.
It looks like you're both in agreement, I also agree. The only way to go about this is to have a mixture of Govt and Private Corp.
Personally I'm for centrally funded amenities (not necessarily run). Amenities should not be run for profit. I include travel in this too so trains and buses. "No entity, company or organisation should be privatised if its subsequent failure would require state intervention. The privatisation fetish has failed ordinary people and the utility companies, transport and energy companies should be allowed to go bust and taken back into public ownership. There are plenty of other FTSE companies out there for pension funds to invest in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever happened to the caveat that 'the value of investments can go down as well as up'? Why should investors in privatised former public utilities be guaranteed a gravy train seat for life? They shouldn't. But investors take a risk with their capital in return for dividend payments in good years. Without some return, they will withdraw their investment and the company will founder. That's what's happening with TW. Maybr shouldn’t have been privatised? Just saying
You can take that view. It depends on your ideology I guess, and who you trust to run things efficiently. Government handling of e.g. defence procurement is beyond incompetent. The win-win is a model between central government and private enterprise that works.
My ideology is pretty much down the centre for most things. Hybrid and compromise to get the best results. I think some things should be national infrastructure and national assets paid for out of our taxes and run for our benefit. In areas where true competition is possible and therefore consumer choice, then Govt should be nowhere near it.
It looks like you're both in agreement, I also agree. The only way to go about this is to have a mixture of Govt and Private Corp.
Personally I'm for centrally funded amenities (not necessarily run). Amenities should not be run for profit. I include travel in this too so trains and buses.
No entity, company or organisation should be privatised if its subsequent failure would require state intervention.
The privatisation fetish has failed ordinary people and the utility companies, transport and energy companies should be allowed to go bust and taken back into public ownership.
There are plenty of other FTSE companies out there for pension funds to invest in."Will the Tories ever realise this or just blunder on, driven by greed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
