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 |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The real question is WHO is saying there's a problem with public ownership." Ah yes there's that too  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well there was a time when the state own the mines, ports, railways, steelmaking, automotive, trains, telecoms, gas, water ..... Without exception they were an unmitigated disaster." How and why? isn't the water companies and rail not in a complete mess? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well there was a time when the state own the mines, ports, railways, steelmaking, automotive, trains, telecoms, gas, water ..... Without exception they were an unmitigated disaster. How and why? isn't the water companies and rail not in a complete mess?" Before privatisation, potable UK water quality barely met min. standards for human consumption. The UK is now in the top 10 countries in the world for water quality. Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?" You will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders. Unless there was some way of offering existing shareholders some kind of guaranteed dividend, initial value and growth. Maybe something like NS&I, or capital gains exemption if shares held for a period of time. In reality, it would never happen as there is absolutely no guarantee after finding the billions needed to buy out investors a state ownership would be any better. Like lots of things, makes a great soundbite. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well there was a time when the state own the mines, ports, railways, steelmaking, automotive, trains, telecoms, gas, water ..... Without exception they were an unmitigated disaster. How and why? isn't the water companies and rail not in a complete mess? Before privatisation, potable UK water quality barely met min. standards for human consumption. The UK is now in the top 10 countries in the world for water quality. Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change." Actually it's largely down to poo, wee, sanitary towels  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change." It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows. Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts? I thought the figure is £53bn, not £30bn. You will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders. Why? When Thames Water goes bust, why should shareholders get anything? They don't when other companies go bust, they are wiped out. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change. It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows. Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden." I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?" "You will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders." "Why? When Thames Water goes bust, why should shareholders get anything? They don't when other companies go bust, they are wiped out." If you're going to treat them like any other company, the liquidators will sell off all the assets to gain as much for the shareholders as possible. Good luck keeping the taps working after all the infrastructure gets sold off. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts? You will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders. Why? When Thames Water goes bust, why should shareholders get anything? They don't when other companies go bust, they are wiped out. If you're going to treat them like any other company, the liquidators will sell off all the assets to gain as much for the shareholders as possible. Good luck keeping the taps working after all the infrastructure gets sold off." If the liabilities exceed the asset value the shareholders get zero. When Thames Water fails the government will take control and keep the taps on. The current shareholders were fools buying into TW after Macquarie had asset stripped it and loaded it with debt. Thatcher sold the water companies debt free, and in the last 14 years the Tories let the likes of Macquarie steal billions right under their noses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders." "Why? When Thames Water goes bust, why should shareholders get anything? They don't when other companies go bust, they are wiped out." "If you're going to treat them like any other company, the liquidators will sell off all the assets to gain as much for the shareholders as possible. Good luck keeping the taps working after all the infrastructure gets sold off." "If the liabilities exceed the asset value the shareholders get zero." And if the liabilities don't exceed the asset value, the shareholders get something. "When Thames Water fails the government will take control and keep the taps on." Ah, so the answer to your earlier question then is that we will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders because we're not going to give them the chance to sell off the assets to get their money back. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change. It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows. Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden. I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell." I agree. River and sea water quality in 2024 is appalling. But honestly speaking, who's fault is it? I was in a major supermarket yesterday, and there are 4 aisles given over entirely to cleaning chemicals, detergents, polishes, dishwasher salts ....etc. That stuff is all soluble and no treatment works can remove it. So into our rivers and seas it passes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change. It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows. Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden. I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell." Curious, how exactly was sewage treated before this of this is a new phenomenon? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change. It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows. Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden." Sewage flows work on the principle of hydraulics. These have changes as climate change has brought 20% more rainfall. Sewage composition itself has changed too - far more chemicals, drugs, detergents, salts, sugars.....you name it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change. It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows. Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden. I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell. Curious, how exactly was sewage treated before this of this is a new phenomenon?" No idea but are you denying things have got worse? Have a look at how the number of blue flag beaches in the UK has reduced  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change. It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows. Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden. I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell. Curious, how exactly was sewage treated before this of this is a new phenomenon?" By single stage primary filtration in sand beds, removing mostly faecal solids. Now sewage has up to three stage filtration AND digestion. But the composition of sewage has changed significantly. Nowadays it contains far more soluble elements that no filtration process can remove. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?" If the water companies are nationalised then does the government get the 30 billion? Is that guaranteed given its a monopoly or will it have to pay out to fix the equipment and end up making a loss. If a loss who pays? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders. Why? When Thames Water goes bust, why should shareholders get anything? They don't when other companies go bust, they are wiped out. If you're going to treat them like any other company, the liquidators will sell off all the assets to gain as much for the shareholders as possible. Good luck keeping the taps working after all the infrastructure gets sold off. If the liabilities exceed the asset value the shareholders get zero. And if the liabilities don't exceed the asset value, the shareholders get something. When Thames Water fails the government will take control and keep the taps on. Ah, so the answer to your earlier question then is that we will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders because we're not going to give them the chance to sell off the assets to get their money back." I see your point but TW has been trying to find the required investment from existing shareholders and presumably new ones. They have plenty of time to achieve. This. If they fail then my argument is TW is worthless, effectively bankrupt and as it's a regulated business the government would step in but not need to give the shareholders a penny. There will be a huge outcry if the government has to take over the debt and pay off the shareholders. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders. Why? When Thames Water goes bust, why should shareholders get anything? They don't when other companies go bust, they are wiped out. If you're going to treat them like any other company, the liquidators will sell off all the assets to gain as much for the shareholders as possible. Good luck keeping the taps working after all the infrastructure gets sold off. If the liabilities exceed the asset value the shareholders get zero. And if the liabilities don't exceed the asset value, the shareholders get something. When Thames Water fails the government will take control and keep the taps on. Ah, so the answer to your earlier question then is that we will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders because we're not going to give them the chance to sell off the assets to get their money back. I see your point but TW has been trying to find the required investment from existing shareholders and presumably new ones. They have plenty of time to achieve. This. If they fail then my argument is TW is worthless, effectively bankrupt and as it's a regulated business the government would step in but not need to give the shareholders a penny. There will be a huge outcry if the government has to take over the debt and pay off the shareholders." I have no idea of how it works when companies go bust but from your post you say TW have failed to get the investment from shareholders. I presume the investment is for upgrades and repairs. If correct and the government do take over, who then pays for the upgrades and repairs that the shareholders refused to fund. As I say just a presumption on my part | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders. Why? When Thames Water goes bust, why should shareholders get anything? They don't when other companies go bust, they are wiped out. If you're going to treat them like any other company, the liquidators will sell off all the assets to gain as much for the shareholders as possible. Good luck keeping the taps working after all the infrastructure gets sold off. If the liabilities exceed the asset value the shareholders get zero. And if the liabilities don't exceed the asset value, the shareholders get something. When Thames Water fails the government will take control and keep the taps on. Ah, so the answer to your earlier question then is that we will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders because we're not going to give them the chance to sell off the assets to get their money back. I see your point but TW has been trying to find the required investment from existing shareholders and presumably new ones. They have plenty of time to achieve. This. If they fail then my argument is TW is worthless, effectively bankrupt and as it's a regulated business the government would step in but not need to give the shareholders a penny. There will be a huge outcry if the government has to take over the debt and pay off the shareholders. I have no idea of how it works when companies go bust but from your post you say TW have failed to get the investment from shareholders. I presume the investment is for upgrades and repairs. If correct and the government do take over, who then pays for the upgrades and repairs that the shareholders refused to fund. As I say just a presumption on my part" When a company goes bust an administrator of some form or other, generally a specialist accountancy company with vast experience of either selling the company as a whole, preferable to save the jobs, or stripping the assets to pay, mainly the preferential creditors and then to ordinary shareholders. In many cases the preferential shareholders get the lions share and folks holding ordinary shares either get nothing or so many pennies in the pound. If a water company goes bust, or any other company, I can't see any reason why the liquidator cannot value the assets and accept a offer from the government to take over. Some assets do have a large residual value but can't be stripped away from the parental asset without a major devaluation of the whole. Recent goverments have been very reluctant to take over a company and return to state ownership. It's a great soundbite but far more difficult to achieve in reality. In theory, all the profits generated should then go into the public purse, in practice the incoming owners would need a bottomless pit of cash to cover years of poor investment in infrastructure and any profits made would more than likely go into a general public purse, be used for all government spending and you will have a state run business just as bad as one held by private shareholders. Don't think there is an easy answer, maybe just more government oversight in strategic service companies. Don't hold your breath. I do take your point about letting a company go bust, all shares are then worthless and HMG can steam in a pick it up for free but it just doesn't work like that. Let's see what happens with this new government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well there was a time when the state own the mines, ports, railways, steelmaking, automotive, trains, telecoms, gas, water ..... Without exception they were an unmitigated disaster." A disaster because profits were taken & used elsewhere by succesive governments instead of them being a disaster because profits are taken by shareholders & obscene CEO bonuses you mean.
Still prefer the public disaster tbh.
S | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change. It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows. Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden. I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell. Curious, how exactly was sewage treated before this of this is a new phenomenon? No idea but are you denying things have got worse? Have a look at how the number of blue flag beaches in the UK has reduced "Not denying. I am genuinely curious. Never been a beach person even though I grew up in a coastal town in India. Hardly been to a beach in the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change. It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows. Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden. I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell. Curious, how exactly was sewage treated before this of this is a new phenomenon? By single stage primary filtration in sand beds, removing mostly faecal solids. Now sewage has up to three stage filtration AND digestion. But the composition of sewage has changed significantly. Nowadays it contains far more soluble elements that no filtration process can remove. " That makes sense. So our consumption model has changed in a way that makes treatment much harder. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change. It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows. Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden. I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell. Curious, how exactly was sewage treated before this of this is a new phenomenon? By single stage primary filtration in sand beds, removing mostly faecal solids. Now sewage has up to three stage filtration AND digestion. But the composition of sewage has changed significantly. Nowadays it contains far more soluble elements that no filtration process can remove. That makes sense. So our consumption model has changed in a way that makes treatment much harder." Exactly that. We are flushing a highly toxic cocktail of chemicals & drugs down sewers that didn't exist a few decades ago. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change. It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows. Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden. I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell. Curious, how exactly was sewage treated before this of this is a new phenomenon? By single stage primary filtration in sand beds, removing mostly faecal solids. Now sewage has up to three stage filtration AND digestion. But the composition of sewage has changed significantly. Nowadays it contains far more soluble elements that no filtration process can remove. That makes sense. So our consumption model has changed in a way that makes treatment much harder. Exactly that. We are flushing a highly toxic cocktail of chemicals & drugs down sewers that didn't exist a few decades ago." Are you suggesting our highly experienced and efficient private sector water companies have not kept up with an evolving situation that impacts their business and have not been investing and innovating to be able to handle things? Sounds negligent and badly managed to me! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?" most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money." Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money. Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that?" Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change. It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows. Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden. I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell. Curious, how exactly was sewage treated before this of this is a new phenomenon? By single stage primary filtration in sand beds, removing mostly faecal solids. Now sewage has up to three stage filtration AND digestion. But the composition of sewage has changed significantly. Nowadays it contains far more soluble elements that no filtration process can remove. That makes sense. So our consumption model has changed in a way that makes treatment much harder. Exactly that. We are flushing a highly toxic cocktail of chemicals & drugs down sewers that didn't exist a few decades ago. Are you suggesting our highly experienced and efficient private sector water companies have not kept up with an evolving situation that impacts their business and have not been investing and innovating to be able to handle things? Sounds negligent and badly managed to me! " Has a lot to do with it being a monopoly. Do you think public ownership will magically fix it? Because that's a monopoly too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money. Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that? Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run?" I’ll let the other poster back up their claim first thanks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money. Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that?" Quite right, it's all super efficient and world beating. Let's go through a few. DWP - Brilliant Immigration - Brilliant Asylum - More than Brilliant NHS - BRILLIANT - Must true I work for them Dept. for Pot Holes - None exist so Brilliant. Dept. for Rural Affairs - Fuck knows. Foreign Office - Brilliant, the world looks up to us and is very scared. Paul met a FCO married couple at a drinks do where oil industry people attended. It was a great night, he was a snob with cheap shoes and she got totally pissed and made a complete twat of herself. - Brilliant. I looked around an RNLI station and foolishly said, is this all voluntary funded or are you run by government. The guy nearly fainted and said could you imagine the RNLI run by civil servants, I should know, he said, I work for the civil service. This is not a poke at the many hard working civil servants but just a few..... Does private industry have all the answers, certainly not, but as an NHS employee I do love to compare the way we operate to they way the oil and gas company Paul works for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money. Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that? Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run?" Nope! But it's hardly surprising is it? Politicians rarely have business experience. Most come from Uni via party researchers to MPs. I doubt the vast majority could read and understand a P&L account and Balance Sheet. So how can they run businesses better than business professionals? It's like assuming they'd be better surgeons. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money. Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that? Quite right, it's all super efficient and world beating. Let's go through a few. DWP - Brilliant Immigration - Brilliant Asylum - More than Brilliant NHS - BRILLIANT - Must true I work for them Dept. for Pot Holes - None exist so Brilliant. Dept. for Rural Affairs - Fuck knows. Foreign Office - Brilliant, the world looks up to us and is very scared. Paul met a FCO married couple at a drinks do where oil industry people attended. It was a great night, he was a snob with cheap shoes and she got totally pissed and made a complete twat of herself. - Brilliant. I looked around an RNLI station and foolishly said, is this all voluntary funded or are you run by government. The guy nearly fainted and said could you imagine the RNLI run by civil servants, I should know, he said, I work for the civil service. This is not a poke at the many hard working civil servants but just a few..... Does private industry have all the answers, certainly not, but as an NHS employee I do love to compare the way we operate to they way the oil and gas company Paul works for. "Don't ever let people know either of you work for the oil & gas industry, you'll have them baying for blood  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money. Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that? Quite right, it's all super efficient and world beating. Let's go through a few. DWP - Brilliant Immigration - Brilliant Asylum - More than Brilliant NHS - BRILLIANT - Must true I work for them Dept. for Pot Holes - None exist so Brilliant. Dept. for Rural Affairs - Fuck knows. Foreign Office - Brilliant, the world looks up to us and is very scared. Paul met a FCO married couple at a drinks do where oil industry people attended. It was a great night, he was a snob with cheap shoes and she got totally pissed and made a complete twat of herself. - Brilliant. I looked around an RNLI station and foolishly said, is this all voluntary funded or are you run by government. The guy nearly fainted and said could you imagine the RNLI run by civil servants, I should know, he said, I work for the civil service. This is not a poke at the many hard working civil servants but just a few..... Does private industry have all the answers, certainly not, but as an NHS employee I do love to compare the way we operate to they way the oil and gas company Paul works for. "Lol fair enough | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money. Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that? Quite right, it's all super efficient and world beating. Let's go through a few. DWP - Brilliant Immigration - Brilliant Asylum - More than Brilliant NHS - BRILLIANT - Must true I work for them Dept. for Pot Holes - None exist so Brilliant. Dept. for Rural Affairs - Fuck knows. Foreign Office - Brilliant, the world looks up to us and is very scared. Paul met a FCO married couple at a drinks do where oil industry people attended. It was a great night, he was a snob with cheap shoes and she got totally pissed and made a complete twat of herself. - Brilliant. I looked around an RNLI station and foolishly said, is this all voluntary funded or are you run by government. The guy nearly fainted and said could you imagine the RNLI run by civil servants, I should know, he said, I work for the civil service. This is not a poke at the many hard working civil servants but just a few..... Does private industry have all the answers, certainly not, but as an NHS employee I do love to compare the way we operate to they way the oil and gas company Paul works for.
Don't ever let people know either of you work for the oil & gas industry, you'll have them baying for blood "Haha. He's used to it. Flying back home a lady sitting next to him asked what he did for a living, he told her, she then basically accused him, single handedly, of being responsible for all pollution and any bonus he received should be immediately handed back or given to charity. Obviously, she accepted all the drinks he bought her, was happy herself to take holiday flights but still thought Paul was at fault. He tried to sleep but she kept poking him when she wanted to discuss another pearl of wisdom. Don't you just love em. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money. Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that? Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run?" Let's start with the Crown Estate. Owned by the Scottish and UK government. Seems pretty successful to me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money. Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that? Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run? Let's start with the Crown Estate. Owned by the Scottish and UK government. Seems pretty successful to me." The Crown Estate is not owned nor run by Government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money. Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that? Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run? Nope! But it's hardly surprising is it? Politicians rarely have business experience. Most come from Uni via party researchers to MPs. I doubt the vast majority could read and understand a P&L account and Balance Sheet. So how can they run businesses better than business professionals? It's like assuming they'd be better surgeons." And they have no incentive to do well. For someone running a business, they have to do it well or they will be out of the market. For governments, they will stay in market no matter how matter how badly they do. You can always pump more tax money into it. Elections happen once every five years anyway. Not to mention their poor ability to react to supply shortages. But no matter how ridiculously it fails, people keep thinking someone would magically fix public sector one day. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money. Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that? Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run? Let's start with the Crown Estate. Owned by the Scottish and UK government. Seems pretty successful to me. The Crown Estate is not owned nor run by Government. " Its ownership may be a mute point but the Government appoints the Board of Directors so it is Goverment run and very successful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money. Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that? Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run? Let's start with the Crown Estate. Owned by the Scottish and UK government. Seems pretty successful to me. The Crown Estate is not owned nor run by Government. Its ownership may be a mute point but the Government appoints the Board of Directors so it is Goverment run and very successful." Interestingly one of the big tenants paying rent to The Crown Estate is… the Government | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money. Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that? Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run? Let's start with the Crown Estate. Owned by the Scottish and UK government. Seems pretty successful to me. The Crown Estate is not owned nor run by Government. Its ownership may be a mute point but the Government appoints the Board of Directors so it is Goverment run and very successful." It's not a government asset so ownership is not moot. According to the crown estate web site, the chancellor puts forward recommendations on the commissioner but it is the monarch that makes the appointment. They go on to say that the estate is run and managed totally independent from the government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money. Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that? Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run? Let's start with the Crown Estate. Owned by the Scottish and UK government. Seems pretty successful to me. The Crown Estate is not owned nor run by Government. Its ownership may be a mute point but the Government appoints the Board of Directors so it is Goverment run and very successful. Interestingly one of the big tenants paying rent to The Crown Estate is… the Government "Yes I suspect they will be the biggest of all tenants and apparently the increase in green energy projects, will increase the crown estate income greatly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should Nationalise the Government so that it belongs to us, not the politicians. "This!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
