rail, water and energy re-nationalisation.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

Thames water has a 13 billion debt hole and is about to be rescued by the Government. Again, too big for its boots company gets bailed out by increasing national debt, whilst we are prepared/already at it, to pay for their polluting habits and modernisation plans via our bills. They have been breaching their own guidelines and are still sharing out monumental profits for their share holders and CEO's.

Our mains water has been repaired six times at various places during the last two years and the old infrastructure is creaking everywhere. Anglian water should belong to all of us if we pay for their mistakes, sack the board and take it over, with no big cheque' in compensations paid for anyone, until our rivers are clean again. Norfolk's precious chalk rivers need special protection and abstraction of water for agriculture and farms that can't be bothered to collect their own rainfall and who leech fertilizers into these streams, should cease. All commercial water needs should comes off roofs, they have a responsibility to save water into cisterns.

Out energy from alternative sources should be transmitted via underground cables, not by unsightly pylons that litter the landscape. Foreign companies that own large wind farms should pay for this sensible option, and if we are already paying for new nuclear power station via our bills, before they even started building, then this will be a public asset not that of a private operator. On shore wind power should be decided by communities who want to generate their own power, not planning authorities who stall and frustrate, local villages/towns should own it and use the receipts to pay it off and to further energy saving measures within their membership who provided pump priming the project, a win win effort.

Railways are the future, we need them to get to work, trade, business and to visit relatives, they take cars off the road and can be co used by local trams with a second set of gauge, or using the existing BR gauge, it is not rocket science, but our planning authorities are unwilling/have not got the expertise, or are too lazy/ignorant to train up staff for the needs that exist.

what are posters thoughts? is our personal excitements/hedonism more important than the future for our children?

Currently we are being bamboozled by party politicians who are hanging on strings to polluting companies and its time to take them out of the equation, we do not need to vote for anyone that stalls so we can keep to the status quo and our unsustainable life styles. We all can make an effort!

 

[king canary 7,677]

You've got to admire the ability of a company to **** up something they have a monopoly over like Thames Water.

Personally I'm all for nationalisation of key utilities. They are a societal need and shouldn't be subject to the whims of shareholders and short term drives for profits over actually being efficient and doing what they should. 

[Herman 9,824]

As someone wisely pointed out privatisation only works for the customer when there is genuine competition. We still have no choice of water company and it has proven to be a complete failure. Ofwat seems to be a toothless regulator too. They've done nothing to stop the offhand shenanigans. Either give us proper competition or re-nationalise.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Absolute disgrace that the giver of life which is plentiful in this country is dependent on whether or not a private company, preferring its shareholders to customers, can refinance its debt. And yet was still willing to pay its CEO a massive bonus on top of her contract. 

Thatcher said privatisation would put the companies back in the hands of us the people who would be shareholders but would be run by efficiency experts. Within two years all the shares had been bought out by large investors. South west Waters largest investor at one time was Rank Organisation. How crazy is that?

Are the trains any better? Is energy any cheaper? Is BT really interested in your telephone (you have to email a phone company to get in touch or complain)?

[Yellow Fever 3,832]

This is what happens when ideology overrides commonsense.

Water is a natural monopoly. It has to be owned and run by the state, not carpet bagging spivs.

[dylanisabaddog 4,987]

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/10/19/most-britons-believe-trains-water-and-energy-shoul

It's extraordinary isn't it? The public have already come to the conclusion that utilities shouldn't be in private ownership. But somehow our infrastructure is now owned by foreign institutions, the Chinese in particular. 

Starmer should be shouting loud about this, safe in the knowledge that he would have public support. Labour should start talking up renationalisation now which would drive down share prices and make it cheaper to buy back what should never have been sold in the first place. 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,594]

37 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/10/19/most-britons-believe-trains-water-and-energy-shoul

It's extraordinary isn't it? The public have already come to the conclusion that utilities shouldn't be in private ownership. But somehow our infrastructure is now owned by foreign institutions, the Chinese in particular. 

Starmer should be shouting loud about this, safe in the knowledge that he would have public support. Labour should start talking up renationalisation now which would drive down share prices and make it cheaper to buy back what should never have been sold in the first place. 

 

Completely agree on the score of renationalisation in principle, but if it was clear that the government was set on it then I would have thought that would drive share prices up? If shareholders aren't compensated at a credible price and foreign stakeholders lose money then it flags up the UK as a political risk for FDI, which is something we can't afford.

In my opinion, a long term strategy of buying shares in utitities when the market's right would make more sense, but the barrier to that is a two party system too given for complete reversals of long-term policies on this sort of thing upon a change of government.

 

[dylanisabaddog 4,987]

27 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Completely agree on the score of renationalisation in principle, but if it was clear that the government was set on it then I would have thought that would drive share prices up? If shareholders aren't compensated at a credible price and foreign stakeholders lose money then it flags up the UK as a political risk for FDI, which is something we can't afford.

In my opinion, a long term strategy of buying shares in utitities when the market's right would make more sense, but the barrier to that is a two party system too given for complete reversals of long-term policies on this sort of thing upon a change of government.

 

As if by magic, LYB pops up and blames it on a 2 party system. Please change the record. 

As for the share price, it just needs handling very carefully. It's perfectly possible to legally drive prices down. Investors like certainty. Make it uncertain and they'll be like rats up a drainpipe. 

[Herman 9,824]

Hmmm....

"The UK’s largest water company, which has 15 million customers in London and the Thames Valley, announced that Bentley would be replaced by Alastair Cochran, the finance chief, and Cathryn Ross, the former boss of the water watchdog Ofwat, as joint interim chief executives."

[Barbe bleu 832]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

As if by magic, LYB pops up and blames it on a 2 party system. Please change the record. 

Hahaha. He does get a bee in his bonnet about FPTP/PR doesn't he? But he's not rhe only person that gets fixated and it does generate debate I guess

 

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

 

As for the share price, it just needs handling very carefully. It's perfectly possible to legally drive prices down. Investors like certainty. Make it uncertain and they'll be like rats up a drainpipe. 

But we do need investors, be in in water or whatever. If the government acted in a way designed to take assets on the cheap there could be far ranging inplications.

I suspect that's why the Labour Party are lukewarm at best on nationalisation, that and they don't want to be cast as the 70s/corbyn 2.0. 

I quite like labour's current approach and that they haven't immediately reached for extremes but I'd over a fairly dry and neutral examination of all the pros and cons of the various options.  An beige open University style programme designed to inform, not to entertain would be good.... but we won't get one.

 

[Mello Yello 2,303]

Special Teflon coated people being rewarded (gargantuan salaries) for abject failure....Whereas the likes of normal folk would be out on our/their ear and more than likely fined....or depending on the ignorance or severity of our abject failure.....a possible custodial sentence....

Think of the stockholders, shareholders, dividends, perks and profits etc.....Who really cares about the customer?....

They say you have to pay the best salaries to get the best people.....'yeah right'.....

Sound familiar?....

[Barbe bleu 832]

33 minutes ago, Mello Yello said:

Special Teflon coated people being rewarded (gargantuan salaries) for abject failure....Whereas the likes of normal folk would be out on our/their ear and more than likely fined....or depending on the ignorance or severity of our abject failure.....a possible custodial sentence....

Think of the stockholders, shareholders, dividends, perks and profits etc.....Who really cares about the customer?....

They say you have to pay the best salaries to get the best people.....'yeah right'.....

Sound familiar?....

I am somewhat sympathetic to the view that executive pay has spiralled hugely, possibly because it is a market that is determined by those same executives and that these executives, whatever their perceived skills, often lack the skills needed to deliver for the actual company they work for.

I'd support moves to cut exec pay generally, but I'm not naive enough to think that there is any big solution in it.

[Bort 34]

12 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

This is what happens when ideology overrides commonsense.

For those in power in this country, "common sense" is anything which keeps capitalism functioning.

Privatisation of state-owned assets provides a short-term boost to private profits (i.e. the lifeblood of capitalism).

But, to adapt a quote from Thatcher, "The problem with privatisation is that you eventually run out of things to privatise."

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Hahaha. He does get a bee in his bonnet about FPTP/PR doesn't he? But he's not rhe only person that gets fixated and it does generate debate I guess

 

But we do need investors, be in in water or whatever. If the government acted in a way designed to take assets on the cheap there could be far ranging inplications.

I suspect that's why the Labour Party are lukewarm at best on nationalisation, that and they don't want to be cast as the 70s/corbyn 2.0. 

I quite like labour's current approach and that they haven't immediately reached for extremes but I'd over a fairly dry and neutral examination of all the pros and cons of the various options.  An beige open University style programme designed to inform, not to entertain would be good.... but we won't get one.

 

Water ownership is ridiculous. Nobody manufactures it. Its a product of the nature of our planet. 

At the same time as the news is telling us of the Chinese stakehold of Thames Water we are being asked to donate money to charities so that people around the world can have wells to get water instead of the dirty crud they have at the moment.

It has to be in public ownership. It cannot be supplied for profit. It cannot depend on foreign ownership how much investment is available.

We cannot talk of the country being run by AI while we are allowing sewage overspill to be dumped in our rivers and coastal waters. We cannot be told to grow our own yet have to suffer a hosepipe ban (SW Water since August 2022). We cannot be told told flush or shower less, 

We are apparently a sophisticated country that has very good annual rainfall and we are surrounded by water. And yet we cannot provide as much water as we want for our needs.

Its this Government getting the stick for it but the Blair Government didn't want to renationalise it and now Lawyer Liar SKS doesn't want to either (in fact, he doesn't know what he wants).

This is one reason for civil disobedience. The life giver for all needs to be in our control.

[Mello Yello 2,303]

4 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I am somewhat sympathetic to the view that executive pay has spiralled hugely, possibly because it is a market that is determined by those same executives and that these executives, whatever their perceived skills, often lack the skills needed to deliver for the actual company they work for.

I'd support moves to cut exec pay generally, but I'm not naive enough to think that there is any big solution in it.

Members of Parliament with career politicians are another classic case....Some so out of their depth they require 20 foot long periscopes an' snorkles...'Durn't do az we do...do az we say'....

Whether in Government or opposition...Oink Oink, Yom Yom, Squeal, Grunt an' Slobber....'Set for life' an' they get away with 'stuff' what you or I certainly wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance of doing...

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Hahaha. He does get a bee in his bonnet about FPTP/PR doesn't he? But he's not rhe only person that gets fixated and it does generate debate I guess

 

But we do need investors, be in in water or whatever. If the government acted in a way designed to take assets on the cheap there could be far ranging inplications

 

That may be true in some parts of our economy but it most definitely isn't the case in our public utilities where the 'cost' of that investment from hedge funds is way higher than the government borrowing the money required, and that is before we get onto the fundamental point that these essential public services need to run efficiently (of course) but they need to be run for the public good and to an acceptable standard.

It doesn't really matter whether you look at water, or electricity or rail etc - privatisation has failed spectacularly for everyone, other than the hedge and pension funds who have asset stripped the utilities whilst delivering poor (atrocious in the case of water) standards of service.

 

 

[Barbe bleu 832]

22 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

That may be true in some parts of our economy but it most definitely isn't the case in our public utilities where the 'cost' of that investment from hedge funds is way higher than the government borrowing the money required, and that is before we get onto the fundamental point that these essential public services need to run efficiently (of course) but they need to be run for the public good and to an acceptable standard.

It doesn't really matter whether you look at water, or electricity or rail etc - privatisation has failed spectacularly for everyone, other than the hedge and pension funds who have asset stripped the utilities whilst delivering poor (atrocious in the case of water) standards of service.

 

 

I'm making a more general point than that and so, I think, is LYB.  

If the government creates the impression that the UK is not a 'safe' place in which to invest (in whatever) or that public projects are not safe the money will go elsewhere.

Whether or not that's a problem is one of the big questions and certainly won't be solved in a regional football forum.

Frankly I don't know enough about the 30 year history of water privatisation or  what the industry might have looked like but for privatisation to really comment on the relative success or failure if it.

 

 

[Barbe bleu 832]

43 minutes ago, Mello Yello said:

Members of Parliament with career politicians are another classic case....Some so out of their depth they require 20 foot long periscopes an' snorkles...'Durn't do az we do...do az we say'....

Whether in Government or opposition...Oink Oink, Yom Yom, Squeal, Grunt an' Slobber....'Set for life' an' they get away with 'stuff' what you or I certainly wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance of doing...

Right....

[littleyellowbirdie 2,594]

5 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

As if by magic, LYB pops up and blames it on a 2 party system. Please change the record. 

As for the share price, it just needs handling very carefully. It's perfectly possible to legally drive prices down. Investors like certainty. Make it uncertain and they'll be like rats up a drainpipe. 

Ad hominem criticism aside, do you think the observation I made regarding our politicial system limiting the opportunity to set a long-term strategy for renationalisation is incorrect?

What are the mechanisms for legally driving down share prices in this instance for essential services? How will that impact investment into improving sewage for example until it's nationalised?

If you like, I'll just leave it at 'RENATIONALISE UTILITIES... RUH RUH RUH!!!', which does sum up a sentiment I generally do agree with, just not without much actual consideration of what's quite a complicated exercise with a lot of political and economic hurdles as BB clearly gets. If that's as far as you think this thread should go on debate, then that's fine by me.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

25 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Ad hominem criticism aside, do you think the observation I made regarding our politicial system limiting the opportunity to set a long-term strategy for renationalisation is incorrect?

What are the mechanisms for legally driving down share prices in this instance for essential services? How will that impact investment into improving sewage for example until it's nationalised?

If you like, I'll just leave it at 'RENATIONALISE UTILITIES... RUH RUH RUH!!!', which does sum up a sentiment I generally do agree with, just not without much actual consideration of what's quite a complicated exercise with a lot of political and economic hurdles as BB clearly gets. If that's as far as you think this thread should go on debate, then that's fine by me.

I think there are matters that are so important that share prices, investors feelings are just not relevant. And water is the essence of life. And we are lucky to be in a position where our supply is plentiful. Its just being misused by those whose interests are not the same as ours.

I'm sure that the major shareholders have had their plentiful dividends and would receive a fair price. Thames water would be the Government paying off its external debt but no money for the shareholders.

[Yellow Fever 3,832]

I think it's really simple in process.

No government (tax payer) money (bail-out) until it goes bust. Then the government takes it over from the administrators (asset sale, not share sale i.e. not the debts/liabilities). If the existing shareholders want to avoid this they better stump up themselves the required monies to keep it afloat. Meanwhile ofwat needs to keep bearing down on consumer costs and enforce the clean up / & investment. Bills to rise < inflation!

What we just can't have is privatization of profits, socializing losses.

Oh - and Maggie's statue to be surrounded by a stinking moat of sewage in the HoP. Just to remind everybody.  

 

 

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

I think there are matters that are so important that share prices, investors feelings are just not relevant. And water is the essence of life. And we are lucky to be in a position where our supply is plentiful. Its just being misused by those whose interests are not the same as ours.

I'm sure that the major shareholders have had their plentiful dividends and would receive a fair price. Thames water would be the Government paying off its external debt but no money for the shareholders.

Exactly so, although I don't see why the banks shouldn't take a bit of a haircut as well - that's normal when a company goes into administration, why should Thames be an exception?

But this is a perfect example of why the idea that taking our utitility companies would be hideously expensive to the public purse is total b*ll*cks. The water companies, for example, have used financial engineering during a sustained period period of very low interest rates combined with not properly delivering the services that they are contracted for to make them seem profitable companies but in reality and when the regulator starts to do the job properly those companies are worth next to nothing.

As for the railways, all that is required is to let the franchises expire or be cancelled in the cases of those performing particularly badly.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Creative Midfielder

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

3 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Exactly so, although I don't see why the banks shouldn't take a bit of a haircut as well - that's normal when a company goes into administration, why should Thames be an exception?

But this is a perfect example of why the idea that taking our utility companies would be hideously expensive to the public purse is total b*ll*cks. The water companies, for example, have used financial engineering during a sustained period period of very low interest rates combined with not properly delivering the services that they are contracted for to make them seem profitable companies but in reality and when the regulator starts to do the job properly those companies are worth next to nothing.

As for the railways, all that is required is to let the franchises expire or be cancelled in the cases of those performing particularly badly.

The railways and supportive services are owned by over 1000 companies. To only nationalise those who are unable to provide services and let the likes of Branson and Co carry on creaming us off, does not make sense, we need one entity in charge again and have a long term plan to restructure and modernize.

As for who owns our utilities, you only have to look at rising bills for lesser services to realise that we need to be in charge of what keeps us alive, not for profit companies should be the new normal, and if they need funds to develop new services or assets then we all will pay for that, so we own it.

 

[Yellow Fever 3,832]

19 minutes ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

The railways and supportive services are owned by over 1000 companies. To only nationalise those who are unable to provide services and let the likes of Branson and Co carry on creaming us off, does not make sense, we need one entity in charge again and have a long term plan to restructure and modernize.

As for who owns our utilities, you only have to look at rising bills for lesser services to realise that we need to be in charge of what keeps us alive, not for profit companies should be the new normal, and if they need funds to develop new services or assets then we all will pay for that, so we own it.

 

My real world commercial experience of 'not for profit' companies is that they are typically much more expensive for commercial services than normal 'for profit' ones! It's especially true of large government aided billion dollar/pound/euro enterprises.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,594]

9 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

I think there are matters that are so important that share prices, investors feelings are just not relevant. And water is the essence of life. And we are lucky to be in a position where our supply is plentiful. Its just being misused by those whose interests are not the same as ours.

I'm sure that the major shareholders have had their plentiful dividends and would receive a fair price. Thames water would be the Government paying off its external debt but no money for the shareholders.

Liz Truss was finished practically overnight by the reaction to her budget.  A move for renationalisation without adequate compensation for stakeholders domestic and overseas would get every bit as negative a reaction. Bear in mind we're starting from a position of owing about 100% of GDP.

That said, moving on from the practicalities of renationalising, I think YF has a good point about a wholly nationalised model in terms of both infrastructure and servicing. Possibly nationalising the infrastructure with competitive tender  for time-limited regional service and maintenance contracts might be the way forward, potentially delegating it to local councils to maximise competition? Government then simply sets prices for a break even cost overall accounting for necessary investment in infrastructure.

Edited June 29, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Liz Truss was finished practically overnight by the reaction to her budget.  A move for renationalisation without adequate compensation for stakeholders domestic and overseas would get every bit as negative a reaction. Bear in mind we're starting from a position of owing about 100% of GDP.

That said, moving on from the practicalities of renationalising, I think YF has a good point about a wholly nationalised model in terms of both infrastructure and servicing. Possibly nationalising the infrastructure with competitive tender  for time-limited regional service and maintenance contracts might be the way forward, potentially delegating it to local councils to maximise competition? Government then simply sets prices for a break even cost overall accounting for necessary investment in infrastructure.

I think not compensating shareholders would be welcomed. I think you are reading the mood wrongly. When water was privatised there was no debt. Now there is billions. Who is responsible? Shareholders vote for the composition of the board. They vote for Directors who borrow money to pay dividends.

We have no choice. When South West Water charges me almost £900 a year, I cannot ask Martin Lewis for an alternative. As far as I am concerned, we owe the shareholders zilch and have no regard to how they feel about it. Its tantamount to theft.

What is the industry in France?

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,594]

25 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I think not compensating shareholders would be welcomed. I think you are reading the mood wrongly. When water was privatised there was no debt. Now there is billions. Who is responsible? Shareholders vote for the composition of the board. They vote for Directors who borrow money to pay dividends.

We have no choice. When South West Water charges me almost £900 a year, I cannot ask Martin Lewis for an alternative. As far as I am concerned, we owe the shareholders zilch and have no regard to how they feel about it. Its tantamount to theft.

What is the industry in France?

 

It was the British government that chose to privatise nationalised industries, according to the electoral choices of the electorate. It took the money raised from it and spent it. Regardless of how awfully many privatised industries have been run, once you establish that the British government will sell things to raise money only to arbitrarily reclaim those things at a later date without proper financial compensation reflecting the market value, global investors will look at that and say 'if I invest in that economy, there's a risk that the government there may arbitrarily take my assets'. Nobody would invest in the UK and we'd be left with a deteriorating economy and hikes in bond yields on our national debt reflecting the fact that the government may not be able to service its debts going forwards.

The mood would soon change once the consequences started to bite.

We pay water bills here too based on how much you consume.

Edited June 29, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

13 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It was the British government that chose to privatise nationalised industries, according to the electoral choices of the electorate. It took the money raised from it and spent it. Regardless of how awfully many privatised industries have been run, once you establish that the British government will sell things to raise money only to arbitrarily reclaim those things at a later date without proper financial compensation reflecting the market value, global investors will look at that and say 'if I invest in that economy, there's a risk that the government there may arbitrarily take my assets'. Nobody would invest in the UK and we'd be left with a deteriorating economy and hikes in bond yields on our national debt reflecting the fact that the government may not be able to service its debts going forwards.

The mood would soon change once the consequences started to bite.

We pay water bills here too based on how much you consume.

As I said, you are mistaking the mood of the country. We aren't talking about rail or telecomms. Its water. Global investors will not be put off anything else. They deal in risk if the reward is greater.

Edited June 29, 2023 by keelansgrandad

[dylanisabaddog 4,987]

21 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Ad hominem criticism aside, do you think the observation I made regarding our politicial system limiting the opportunity to set a long-term strategy for renationalisation is incorrect?

What are the mechanisms for legally driving down share prices in this instance for essential services? How will that impact investment into improving sewage for example until it's nationalised?

If you like, I'll just leave it at 'RENATIONALISE UTILITIES... RUH RUH RUH!!!', which does sum up a sentiment I generally do agree with, just not without much actual consideration of what's quite a complicated exercise with a lot of political and economic hurdles as BB clearly gets. If that's as far as you think this thread should go on debate, then that's fine by me.

Your observation is neither correct or incorrect. It's irrelevant. We may as well debate where we will play Mbappe when we sign him. 

Pushing the share price down legally is straightforward. In simple terms large investors have a spread of low, medium and high risk holdings. Water companies are low risk, they should pay consistent dividends but share values are unlikely to grow hugely, mainly because water companies can't outperform competitors. If investors think dividends will be cut they will move their money elsewhere. The companies will be forced to cut dividends if the Government forces them to do their job properly. 

And of course we have now been presented with an ideal opportunity to make investors think. It won't be taken. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[Daz Sparks 1,183]

£24B (adjusted) is what it raised the UK in selling water to the devil. 

A piddling amount. 

I would be happy to see the private water companies regulated to within an inch of their lives and the water brought back into public ownership. 

Same for energy and rail. I'm sick to the back teeth of being a cash cow for this screwed up capitalist system, it is bleeding average people dry for an elite few to live a life of fantastic luxury. 

The whole privatisation project has failed, and needs undoing wholesale.