FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Water Companies
Water Companies
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *irldn OP Couple 48 weeks ago
Brighton |
I know there may be some contrary views on this but I am quite frankly (and literally) disgusted by the actions of our water companies in the UK.
I don’t have the exact figures to hand but since privatisation these companies have paid out £billions in dividends to shareholders. However, over the same period it has become increasingly clear that they have completely failed in ensuring the right level of investment in the infrastructure to the extent that there have now been thousands of releases of raw sewage into our rivers and sea over the last few years.
Having finally been told to (literally) clean up their act, the water companies are going to now start investing but will increase consumer bills to pay for it.
I have not heard anything about freezing, stopping dividend payments or cutting executive salaries or bonuses.
As these are utilities, shouldn’t there be a mechanism requiring the cost to be shouldered by the owners of the companies (ie shareholders) after all, when they were privatised they were debt free! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I know there may be some contrary views on this but I am quite frankly (and literally) disgusted by the actions of our water companies in the UK.
I don’t have the exact figures to hand but since privatisation these companies have paid out £billions in dividends to shareholders. However, over the same period it has become increasingly clear that they have completely failed in ensuring the right level of investment in the infrastructure to the extent that there have now been thousands of releases of raw sewage into our rivers and sea over the last few years.
Having finally been told to (literally) clean up their act, the water companies are going to now start investing but will increase consumer bills to pay for it.
I have not heard anything about freezing, stopping dividend payments or cutting executive salaries or bonuses.
As these are utilities, shouldn’t there be a mechanism requiring the cost to be shouldered by the owners of the companies (ie shareholders) after all, when they were privatised they were debt free!"
I don't disagree but....
Nah, seriously. All amenities need to get back into public ownership ASAP. That way the government can make (some) profit whilst keeping costs down for the whole country. The problem with that is they can't personally profit so unlikely to ever happen |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 48 weeks ago
Brighton |
"I know there may be some contrary views on this but I am quite frankly (and literally) disgusted by the actions of our water companies in the UK.
I don’t have the exact figures to hand but since privatisation these companies have paid out £billions in dividends to shareholders. However, over the same period it has become increasingly clear that they have completely failed in ensuring the right level of investment in the infrastructure to the extent that there have now been thousands of releases of raw sewage into our rivers and sea over the last few years.
Having finally been told to (literally) clean up their act, the water companies are going to now start investing but will increase consumer bills to pay for it.
I have not heard anything about freezing, stopping dividend payments or cutting executive salaries or bonuses.
As these are utilities, shouldn’t there be a mechanism requiring the cost to be shouldered by the owners of the companies (ie shareholders) after all, when they were privatised they were debt free!
I don't disagree but....
Nah, seriously. All amenities need to get back into public ownership ASAP. That way the government can make (some) profit whilst keeping costs down for the whole country. The problem with that is they can't personally profit so unlikely to ever happen"
 banned words alert lol!
We agree. Utilities should be state owned. The way to bring these companies back into state ownership without it having to cost taxpayers £billions is to impose a new massively higher penalty regime for failing to meet standards. Fine these companies such a huge amount that it reduces their share price to such a low amount, the govt can snap them back up! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I know there may be some contrary views on this but I am quite frankly (and literally) disgusted by the actions of our water companies in the UK.
I don’t have the exact figures to hand but since privatisation these companies have paid out £billions in dividends to shareholders. However, over the same period it has become increasingly clear that they have completely failed in ensuring the right level of investment in the infrastructure to the extent that there have now been thousands of releases of raw sewage into our rivers and sea over the last few years.
Having finally been told to (literally) clean up their act, the water companies are going to now start investing but will increase consumer bills to pay for it.
I have not heard anything about freezing, stopping dividend payments or cutting executive salaries or bonuses.
As these are utilities, shouldn’t there be a mechanism requiring the cost to be shouldered by the owners of the companies (ie shareholders) after all, when they were privatised they were debt free!
I don't disagree but....
Nah, seriously. All amenities need to get back into public ownership ASAP. That way the government can make (some) profit whilst keeping costs down for the whole country. The problem with that is they can't personally profit so unlikely to ever happen
banned words alert lol!
We agree. Utilities should be state owned. The way to bring these companies back into state ownership without it having to cost taxpayers £billions is to impose a new massively higher penalty regime for failing to meet standards. Fine these companies such a huge amount that it reduces their share price to such a low amount, the govt can snap them back up!"
Never gonna happen unfortunately but I'm glad we agree |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It is in the public interest so could fall under a compulsory purchase order. They can pay only the asset worth, not future earnings.
"
Would you not have to buy out the sheare holders to get the shears back.
Or could the government become the CEO and threatened to charge Shere holders for the investment needed. The big problem is now going to be catching up with work one the works. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
One reason why I don't really pay for water there all greedy always same profit before investment just pass the bill to the public I agree anything we all need should be publicly owned and all profits put back into said investment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 48 weeks ago
Brighton |
"One reason why I don't really pay for water there all greedy always same profit before investment just pass the bill to the public I agree anything we all need should be publicly owned and all profits put back into said investment."
How do you not really pay for water?
Agree with you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 48 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"One reason why I don't really pay for water there all greedy always same profit before investment just pass the bill to the public I agree anything we all need should be publicly owned and all profits put back into said investment.
How do you not really pay for water?
Agree with you."
Showers at his mates house |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 48 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"We don't have that problem in Scotland as we don't have water meters. Seems weird that you pay like that in England and Wales "
Everyone pays the same in Scotland, no matter how much water you use or don’t?
I could google this but I will ask here, do you ever get hosepipe bans? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"One reason why I don't really pay for water there all greedy always same profit before investment just pass the bill to the public I agree anything we all need should be publicly owned and all profits put back into said investment.
How do you not really pay for water?
Agree with you.
Showers at his mates house"
no showers and bath's all at mine id like to say but as illegal I might get arrested ?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"One reason why I don't really pay for water there all greedy always same profit before investment just pass the bill to the public I agree anything we all need should be publicly owned and all profits put back into said investment.
How do you not really pay for water?
Agree with you.
Showers at his mates houseno showers and bath's all at mine id like to say but as illegal I might get arrested ??"
And you were complaining the other day that tenants don't pay |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Yeah it’s unthinkable for a country to split utilities and water up and privatise them like uk has. There’s no added value , they just need to work and be cheap. It should be centrally managed , simplified and subsidised. Just like transport.
The government are too concerned with things they shouldn’t be and fail on the basic priorities |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I used to have some dealings with Water Companies. Initial privatisation worked well, with water companies investing £billions into potable water treatment. But sewage is harder to improver because the entire system is flawed by having a pipe network that combines sewage withs storm water collection (other countries separate them). We'd have to lay millions of miles of new pipes to overcome that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"I used to have some dealings with Water Companies. Initial privatisation worked well, with water companies investing £billions into potable water treatment. But sewage is harder to improver because the entire system is flawed by having a pipe network that combines sewage withs storm water collection (other countries separate them). We'd have to lay millions of miles of new pipes to overcome that. "
They better get investing then and require shareholders to take the hit not consumers! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I used to have some dealings with Water Companies. Initial privatisation worked well, with water companies investing £billions into potable water treatment. But sewage is harder to improver because the entire system is flawed by having a pipe network that combines sewage withs storm water collection (other countries separate them). We'd have to lay millions of miles of new pipes to overcome that.
They better get investing then and require shareholders to take the hit not consumers!"
Yes, they should. But whilst sewage 'solids' are unpleasant in rivers and beaches, they are not the harmful fraction of sewage. They nasty parts are dissolved compounds not removed by any treatment works, including salts, phosphates, sugars, drugs (legal and illegal), cleaning chemicals ..... you name it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I used to have some dealings with Water Companies. Initial privatisation worked well, with water companies investing £billions into potable water treatment. But sewage is harder to improver because the entire system is flawed by having a pipe network that combines sewage withs storm water collection (other countries separate them). We'd have to lay millions of miles of new pipes to overcome that.
They better get investing then and require shareholders to take the hit not consumers!
Yes, they should. But whilst sewage 'solids' are unpleasant in rivers and beaches, they are not the harmful fraction of sewage. They nasty parts are dissolved compounds not removed by any treatment works, including salts, phosphates, sugars, drugs (legal and illegal), cleaning chemicals ..... you name it."
Totally agree with this point to meny chemicals we have dramatically reduced the amount of bleach we use. But when I was a child Sunday night was Bath night, now its a shower every night or more all with soap generally made from oil. And the washing machine well more chemicals.
Etc, Etc, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"I used to have some dealings with Water Companies. Initial privatisation worked well, with water companies investing £billions into potable water treatment. But sewage is harder to improver because the entire system is flawed by having a pipe network that combines sewage withs storm water collection (other countries separate them). We'd have to lay millions of miles of new pipes to overcome that.
They better get investing then and require shareholders to take the hit not consumers!
Yes, they should. But whilst sewage 'solids' are unpleasant in rivers and beaches, they are not the harmful fraction of sewage. They nasty parts are dissolved compounds not removed by any treatment works, including salts, phosphates, sugars, drugs (legal and illegal), cleaning chemicals ..... you name it.
Totally agree with this point to meny chemicals we have dramatically reduced the amount of bleach we use. But when I was a child Sunday night was Bath night, now its a shower every night or more all with soap generally made from oil. And the washing machine well more chemicals.
Etc, Etc,"
I love this comment, I really do, that was a reality and I hated Sundays, forget Monday |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I know there may be some contrary views on this but I am quite frankly (and literally) disgusted by the actions of our water companies in the UK.
I don’t have the exact figures to hand but since privatisation these companies have paid out £billions in dividends to shareholders. However, over the same period it has become increasingly clear that they have completely failed in ensuring the right level of investment in the infrastructure to the extent that there have now been thousands of releases of raw sewage into our rivers and sea over the last few years.
Having finally been told to (literally) clean up their act, the water companies are going to now start investing but will increase consumer bills to pay for it.
I have not heard anything about freezing, stopping dividend payments or cutting executive salaries or bonuses.
As these are utilities, shouldn’t there be a mechanism requiring the cost to be shouldered by the owners of the companies (ie shareholders) after all, when they were privatised they were debt free!"
The water was originally built by private companies in the 19th century.
Over the years the government took them under their own banners from the companies until they owned them all.
Then never invested in improving the infrastructure for 100 years.
In the 70s and 8ps it became clear that the uk needed to upgrade its system but the uk couldn't afford it.
So the water was sold BACK to the private sector. Which made quick improvements but quite frankly re planting the entire victoriana infrastructure is a huge cost that requires the government to play ball too but none have since re privatisation.
Sewage has always been released into the sea and rivers sadly. That's what you get for relying on a 150 year old system for well over 10p years built for about 10m people not 70m or so.
We know more about effluent release now because the tories implemented a monitoring system. Still not in place in scotland sadly.
Thankfully new technological breakthroughs mean this is likely to improve in the coming future as well as the London super sewer.
Re privatisation and being debt free. What do you mean?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
Plenty of background info on that Morley but this one is particularly interesting with the public health focus...
https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o2076
“When Thatcher transferred ownership of the 10 public water utilities to the private sector, she wrote off their existing debts and threw in some seed money as well. Over the ensuing three decades, the experiment has worked well for investors, but has been disastrous for consumers and the environment.“ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Plenty of background info on that Morley but this one is particularly interesting with the public health focus...
https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o2076
“When Thatcher transferred ownership of the 10 public water utilities to the private sector, she wrote off their existing debts and threw in some seed money as well. Over the ensuing three decades, the experiment has worked well for investors, but has been disastrous for consumers and the environment.“"
I know thatcher transferred ownership of them
But
"When the Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher sold off the water industry in 1989, the government wrote off all debts amounting to £5bn and granted the water companies a further £1.5bn of public money, known as a “green dowry”
Not sure they were working fine and debt free. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"It literally says they werent debt free when sold off.
They had large debts because they were so poorly run by the uk government, the government had to wipe the debt off
"
Err yeah so when privatised they didn’t take on the debt! So they became debt free after being privatised. How many companies get to wipe out their debt when they get take over/bought out? The new owner assumes the debt but not in this case. So it was a totally sweet deal for shareholders. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It literally says they werent debt free when sold off.
They had large debts because they were so poorly run by the uk government, the government had to wipe the debt off
Err yeah so when privatised they didn’t take on the debt! So they became debt free after being privatised. How many companies get to wipe out their debt when they get take over/bought out? The new owner assumes the debt but not in this case. So it was a totally sweet deal for shareholders."
OK so you didn't mean they were being ru well when taking over you mean the government wrote off the debt ok.
And why doesn't matter sorry?
Why does being debt free mean you can do sorry?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"It literally says they werent debt free when sold off.
They had large debts because they were so poorly run by the uk government, the government had to wipe the debt off
Err yeah so when privatised they didn’t take on the debt! So they became debt free after being privatised. How many companies get to wipe out their debt when they get take over/bought out? The new owner assumes the debt but not in this case. So it was a totally sweet deal for shareholders.
OK so you didn't mean they were being ru well when taking over you mean the government wrote off the debt ok.
And why doesn't matter sorry?
Why does being debt free mean you can do sorry?
"
Did you actually read what I wrote or just replied with what you wanted to say?
Show me where I said they were well run when state owned?
I said they were debt free when privatised. This is a fact because the debt was written off before privatisation started. Totally sweet deal for shareholders. A debt free business with a huge added incentive payment!
Then decades of under investment but bumper dividends for shareholders. The whole argument for privatisation of utilities was that the companies would be better run, more efficient, and better for consumers. It appears none of that is true. The only beneficiaries have been shareholders and, in the case of water, involving a resource that should actually belong to the state and all the citizens.
There should have been stipulations on level of investment and the requirement to upgrade the Victorian infrastructure as part of the deal with privatisation and the debt write off.
And now they have the brass balls to pass the cost of investment/upgrade onto consumers! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It literally says they werent debt free when sold off.
They had large debts because they were so poorly run by the uk government, the government had to wipe the debt off
Err yeah so when privatised they didn’t take on the debt! So they became debt free after being privatised. How many companies get to wipe out their debt when they get take over/bought out? The new owner assumes the debt but not in this case. So it was a totally sweet deal for shareholders.
OK so you didn't mean they were being ru well when taking over you mean the government wrote off the debt ok.
And why doesn't matter sorry?
Why does being debt free mean you can do sorry?
Did you actually read what I wrote or just replied with what you wanted to say?
Show me where I said they were well run when state owned?
I said they were debt free when privatised. This is a fact because the debt was written off before privatisation started. Totally sweet deal for shareholders. A debt free business with a huge added incentive payment!
Then decades of under investment but bumper dividends for shareholders. The whole argument for privatisation of utilities was that the companies would be better run, more efficient, and better for consumers. It appears none of that is true. The only beneficiaries have been shareholders and, in the case of water, involving a resource that should actually belong to the state and all the citizens.
There should have been stipulations on level of investment and the requirement to upgrade the Victorian infrastructure as part of the deal with privatisation and the debt write off.
And now they have the brass balls to pass the cost of investment/upgrade onto consumers!"
I am trying tl get to.the bottom of you implication of debt free.
Why does that matter?
Why is it a sweet deal?
You are saying things but without explanation?
Buyer dividends? How are they bumper?
Under investment? Compared to what?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" As these are utilities, shouldn’t there be a mechanism requiring the cost to be shouldered by the owners of the companies (ie shareholders) after all, when they were privatised they were debt free!"
Tbf if someone wasn't aware, I genuinely think this says 'they didnt have any debt' and not 'they had their debt written off'
It's just how it reads and now arguing over it
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As an example of the above.
Having a debt written off when purchasing a failing company doesn't necessarily mean you get a sweet deal.
Arcadia had around 60% of its credit written off. It still went under 2 years later. You can write off a debt it does t mean that the investment would work in a struggling business. So please expand on the " sweet deal"
Bumper dividends compared to what. Can you compare it vs dividends paid out by other ftse companies over the same time frame? You'd need a comparison surely to say they are " bumper"
"Under investment".
Again surely we need a comparison here. It looks like in the 70s and 80s the water works were billions in debt and not working. What was the investment like in water ways from 50s to 80a compared to say 90s and 00s.
Have you got evidence that the investment was lower than when gov in charge.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest. "
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"If you don't want to back up your claims that's fine. But I absolutely jave the right to question them"
You do but we do not agree or see eye-to-eye on this. This whole issue illustrates why utilities should have remained in public ownership. They are essential for life and health of citizens. They are not commodities or discretionary purchases.
So saying £60bn in dividends let’s compare that to other FTSE/listed companies (or whatever) is fatuous. It is a false equivalence because by their very nature, utilities are not the same as most companies due to the fundamental level of infrastructure required. By their very nature, they will require higher levels of ongoing investment in infrastructure. In this case a radical upgrade on outdated infrastructure. If you (not you, but anyone) don’t like that then don’t invest! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
"
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you don't want to back up your claims that's fine. But I absolutely jave the right to question them
You do but we do not agree or see eye-to-eye on this. This whole issue illustrates why utilities should have remained in public ownership. They are essential for life and health of citizens. They are not commodities or discretionary purchases.
So saying £60bn in dividends let’s compare that to other FTSE/listed companies (or whatever) is fatuous. It is a false equivalence because by their very nature, utilities are not the same as most companies due to the fundamental level of infrastructure required. By their very nature, they will require higher levels of ongoing investment in infrastructure. In this case a radical upgrade on outdated infrastructure. If you (not you, but anyone) don’t like that then don’t invest!"
But they were arguably in a much worse state in public ownership?
So you need to qualify why you think they'd be better now?
You asked about the dividends you seem to claim they are over paid. Yet you don't want to quantify this in any way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge."
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 47 weeks ago
|
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
"
Bless. The naivety. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
"
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
"
Why. For 4 decades tbe government couldn't improve it before selling it off.
Part kf the sell for was thay they couldn't afford to fix the leaks. This was the priority.
We just had the lowest level of measured leaks since they began measuring .
This costs billions and billions investments. The ea and ofwat were invented to monitor this situation and its Improved under private ownership than vs under the governemnt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 47 weeks ago
|
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Why. For 4 decades tbe government couldn't improve it before selling it off.
Part kf the sell for was thay they couldn't afford to fix the leaks. This was the priority.
"
Of course they could afford to do it. They *chose* not to do so. Same with upgrading the railways. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
"
Forgot to add, taxing on an income based affordability will require confidence that the tax £ is being managed correctly, hence the above structure.
This would put water, an essential to life at the same priority as the NHS, in funding.
Learning from NHS mistakes will allow water supply to be managed for the 21st century. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Why. For 4 decades tbe government couldn't improve it before selling it off.
Part kf the sell for was thay they couldn't afford to fix the leaks. This was the priority.
Of course they could afford to do it. They *chose* not to do so. Same with upgrading the railways. "
You say they can afford to do it. Along with build roads, upgrade railways and build new housing.
Genuinely interested to hear where this 'magic money tree' is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Forgot to add, taxing on an income based affordability will require confidence that the tax £ is being managed correctly, hence the above structure.
This would put water, an essential to life at the same priority as the NHS, in funding.
Learning from NHS mistakes will allow water supply to be managed for the 21st century. "
The nhs hasn't learned from.its mistakes. So I don't get this point. It's a Blackmore of public finance. That's consumed more tax revenue year on year since its inception |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Why. For 4 decades tbe government couldn't improve it before selling it off.
Part kf the sell for was thay they couldn't afford to fix the leaks. This was the priority.
Of course they could afford to do it. They *chose* not to do so. Same with upgrading the railways. "
We saw where money printing got us after corona. What money is this? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 47 weeks ago
|
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Why. For 4 decades tbe government couldn't improve it before selling it off.
Part kf the sell for was thay they couldn't afford to fix the leaks. This was the priority.
Of course they could afford to do it. They *chose* not to do so. Same with upgrading the railways.
We saw where money printing got us after corona. What money is this?"
How do other nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 47 weeks ago
|
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Why. For 4 decades tbe government couldn't improve it before selling it off.
Part kf the sell for was thay they couldn't afford to fix the leaks. This was the priority.
Of course they could afford to do it. They *chose* not to do so. Same with upgrading the railways.
We saw where money printing got us after corona. What money is this?
How do other nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services? "
Incidentally I can’t speak for water, but the subsidies paid by govt in the rail industry now far outstrip the cost of BR days (in real terms) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Forgot to add, taxing on an income based affordability will require confidence that the tax £ is being managed correctly, hence the above structure.
This would put water, an essential to life at the same priority as the NHS, in funding.
Learning from NHS mistakes will allow water supply to be managed for the 21st century.
The nhs hasn't learned from.its mistakes. So I don't get this point. It's a Blackmore of public finance. That's consumed more tax revenue year on year since its inception "
You are correct the NHS hasn't that is why I said, "learning from the mistakes of the NHS", as in not make the same mistakes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Why. For 4 decades tbe government couldn't improve it before selling it off.
Part kf the sell for was thay they couldn't afford to fix the leaks. This was the priority.
Of course they could afford to do it. They *chose* not to do so. Same with upgrading the railways.
We saw where money printing got us after corona. What money is this?
How do other nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services? "
They don't.
Have a look at countries drinking water and sewage cspability |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Forgot to add, taxing on an income based affordability will require confidence that the tax £ is being managed correctly, hence the above structure.
This would put water, an essential to life at the same priority as the NHS, in funding.
Learning from NHS mistakes will allow water supply to be managed for the 21st century.
The nhs hasn't learned from.its mistakes. So I don't get this point. It's a Blackmore of public finance. That's consumed more tax revenue year on year since its inception
You are correct the NHS hasn't that is why I said, "learning from the mistakes of the NHS", as in not make the same mistakes."
But if you can't change the NHS now while in public ownership I've no idea why you think water would be different? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 47 weeks ago
|
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Why. For 4 decades tbe government couldn't improve it before selling it off.
Part kf the sell for was thay they couldn't afford to fix the leaks. This was the priority.
Of course they could afford to do it. They *chose* not to do so. Same with upgrading the railways.
We saw where money printing got us after corona. What money is this?
How do other nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services?
They don't.
Have a look at countries drinking water and sewage cspability"
You’re claiming that no nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services? None at all?
You’re a joker. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Why. For 4 decades tbe government couldn't improve it before selling it off.
Part kf the sell for was thay they couldn't afford to fix the leaks. This was the priority.
Of course they could afford to do it. They *chose* not to do so. Same with upgrading the railways.
We saw where money printing got us after corona. What money is this?
How do other nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services?
They don't.
Have a look at countries drinking water and sewage cspability
You’re claiming that no nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services? None at all?
You’re a joker."
Read back what I said.
Keeping this on water.
Private and public. How many countries have 100% clean drinking water and have ghigh rated servers? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Forgot to add, taxing on an income based affordability will require confidence that the tax £ is being managed correctly, hence the above structure.
This would put water, an essential to life at the same priority as the NHS, in funding.
Learning from NHS mistakes will allow water supply to be managed for the 21st century.
The nhs hasn't learned from.its mistakes. So I don't get this point. It's a Blackmore of public finance. That's consumed more tax revenue year on year since its inception
You are correct the NHS hasn't that is why I said, "learning from the mistakes of the NHS", as in not make the same mistakes.
But if you can't change the NHS now while in public ownership I've no idea why you think water would be different?"
Blank canvas in public ownership, learning from the corporate world in terms of best practices and finally building a sustainable cost model to fund it that has the backing of the public.
Certain elements would need to be outsourced, customer services as I mentioned earlier |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 47 weeks ago
|
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Why. For 4 decades tbe government couldn't improve it before selling it off.
Part kf the sell for was thay they couldn't afford to fix the leaks. This was the priority.
Of course they could afford to do it. They *chose* not to do so. Same with upgrading the railways.
We saw where money printing got us after corona. What money is this?
How do other nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services?
They don't.
Have a look at countries drinking water and sewage cspability
You’re claiming that no nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services? None at all?
You’re a joker.
Read back what I said.
Keeping this on water.
Private and public. How many countries have 100% clean drinking water and have ghigh rated servers?"
Read back what I asked first - I asked about services.
And also look at the (public) water system in Germany. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Forgot to add, taxing on an income based affordability will require confidence that the tax £ is being managed correctly, hence the above structure.
This would put water, an essential to life at the same priority as the NHS, in funding.
Learning from NHS mistakes will allow water supply to be managed for the 21st century.
The nhs hasn't learned from.its mistakes. So I don't get this point. It's a Blackmore of public finance. That's consumed more tax revenue year on year since its inception
You are correct the NHS hasn't that is why I said, "learning from the mistakes of the NHS", as in not make the same mistakes.
But if you can't change the NHS now while in public ownership I've no idea why you think water would be different?
Blank canvas in public ownership, learning from the corporate world in terms of best practices and finally building a sustainable cost model to fund it that has the backing of the public.
Certain elements would need to be outsourced, customer services as I mentioned earlier"
But it's not a blank canvas though. You could do the same with the post office and the nhs now but they choose not to refom( even with rail companies taken back under public ownership). Sorry but if time and time again they get worse. I just dont see * next time it'll be different* working.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Why. For 4 decades tbe government couldn't improve it before selling it off.
Part kf the sell for was thay they couldn't afford to fix the leaks. This was the priority.
Of course they could afford to do it. They *chose* not to do so. Same with upgrading the railways.
We saw where money printing got us after corona. What money is this?
How do other nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services?
They don't.
Have a look at countries drinking water and sewage cspability
You’re claiming that no nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services? None at all?
You’re a joker.
Read back what I said.
Keeping this on water.
Private and public. How many countries have 100% clean drinking water and have ghigh rated servers?
Read back what I asked first - I asked about services.
And also look at the (public) water system in Germany. "
We are talking about water. So let's keep it on point.
Germany ...7% of rural homes don't have sanitation.
That's 700k people without access to sewerage systems.
Their water and sanitation tarriffs are higher?
And thisnis the best e.u economy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Forgot to add, taxing on an income based affordability will require confidence that the tax £ is being managed correctly, hence the above structure.
This would put water, an essential to life at the same priority as the NHS, in funding.
Learning from NHS mistakes will allow water supply to be managed for the 21st century.
The nhs hasn't learned from.its mistakes. So I don't get this point. It's a Blackmore of public finance. That's consumed more tax revenue year on year since its inception
You are correct the NHS hasn't that is why I said, "learning from the mistakes of the NHS", as in not make the same mistakes.
But if you can't change the NHS now while in public ownership I've no idea why you think water would be different?
Blank canvas in public ownership, learning from the corporate world in terms of best practices and finally building a sustainable cost model to fund it that has the backing of the public.
Certain elements would need to be outsourced, customer services as I mentioned earlier
But it's not a blank canvas though. You could do the same with the post office and the nhs now but they choose not to refom( even with rail companies taken back under public ownership). Sorry but if time and time again they get worse. I just dont see * next time it'll be different* working.
"
Having worked on many M&A's I can say that a privatisation success would be achievable by following what has gone before.
The post office and the NHS are bad examples of why it wouldn't work, we can do without the post office and it is only still around because of bad product decisions that have meant they can't simply close. The NHS was designed to support a public that no longer exists, it broke under the weight of its own early success, became a pit of complexity and here we are.
Rip up the old run-book and outsource the core elements of management as I have mentioned. Using corporate strategy and management, to underpin the service will bring the change required. Charging models that are designed to future proof the infrastructure from the get go, creating 5 - 10 - 15 year investment plans.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 47 weeks ago
|
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Why. For 4 decades tbe government couldn't improve it before selling it off.
Part kf the sell for was thay they couldn't afford to fix the leaks. This was the priority.
Of course they could afford to do it. They *chose* not to do so. Same with upgrading the railways.
We saw where money printing got us after corona. What money is this?
How do other nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services?
They don't.
Have a look at countries drinking water and sewage cspability
You’re claiming that no nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services? None at all?
You’re a joker.
Read back what I said.
Keeping this on water.
Private and public. How many countries have 100% clean drinking water and have ghigh rated servers?
Read back what I asked first - I asked about services.
And also look at the (public) water system in Germany.
We are talking about water. So let's keep it on point.
Germany ...7% of rural homes don't have sanitation.
That's 700k people without access to sewerage systems.
Their water and sanitation tarriffs are higher?
And thisnis the best e.u economy?"
And in the U.K it’s around 4%. What’s your point?
How much is the average water bill in each nation? How much water is wasted by the systems? How much raw sewerage is pumped out to sea respectively?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Forgot to add, taxing on an income based affordability will require confidence that the tax £ is being managed correctly, hence the above structure.
This would put water, an essential to life at the same priority as the NHS, in funding.
Learning from NHS mistakes will allow water supply to be managed for the 21st century.
The nhs hasn't learned from.its mistakes. So I don't get this point. It's a Blackmore of public finance. That's consumed more tax revenue year on year since its inception
You are correct the NHS hasn't that is why I said, "learning from the mistakes of the NHS", as in not make the same mistakes.
But if you can't change the NHS now while in public ownership I've no idea why you think water would be different?
Blank canvas in public ownership, learning from the corporate world in terms of best practices and finally building a sustainable cost model to fund it that has the backing of the public.
Certain elements would need to be outsourced, customer services as I mentioned earlier
But it's not a blank canvas though. You could do the same with the post office and the nhs now but they choose not to refom( even with rail companies taken back under public ownership). Sorry but if time and time again they get worse. I just dont see * next time it'll be different* working.
Having worked on many M&A's I can say that a privatisation success would be achievable by following what has gone before.
The post office and the NHS are bad examples of why it wouldn't work, we can do without the post office and it is only still around because of bad product decisions that have meant they can't simply close. The NHS was designed to support a public that no longer exists, it broke under the weight of its own early success, became a pit of complexity and here we are.
Rip up the old run-book and outsource the core elements of management as I have mentioned. Using corporate strategy and management, to underpin the service will bring the change required. Charging models that are designed to future proof the infrastructure from the get go, creating 5 - 10 - 15 year investment plans.
"
I like the enthusiasm but history has taught us this simply isn't true for me.
To me what your posting sounds a lot like " yeah but that wasn't real socialism" type of excuse.
Time and again. There's been opportunity for reform. And to take learnings from the private sector. It doesn't happen. Same with any government spending on hs2, snp and its ferries.
They overrun they cost double or triple budget.
Councils regularly over spend
I think the poor management is simply ingrained as well as using approved suppliers etc.
I can't see water suddenly bucking the trend of a public sector company bot racking up debt.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
In this case for water the Magic money tree =
Over last 35yrs water companies have paid £60bn in dividends.
Dividends can only be paid from post tax profits.
In simple terms...
To calculate post tax profits you first deduct all operating costs (inc salaries, maintenance, product components like chemicals in this case etc). You then pay Corporation Tax. Any sensible company build up reserves for investment. Then you can declare a dividend.
So the £60bn over 35 years would have been in addition to any investment that was actually made. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In this case for water the Magic money tree =
Over last 35yrs water companies have paid £60bn in dividends.
Dividends can only be paid from post tax profits.
In simple terms...
To calculate post tax profits you first deduct all operating costs (inc salaries, maintenance, product components like chemicals in this case etc). You then pay Corporation Tax. Any sensible company build up reserves for investment. Then you can declare a dividend.
So the £60bn over 35 years would have been in addition to any investment that was actually made."
I get that ad an individual case but we're talking of nationalisation as a means to lower costs for consumer.
So 1.7b per year I believe if my maths is correct £68 per house in the UK |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Forgot to add, taxing on an income based affordability will require confidence that the tax £ is being managed correctly, hence the above structure.
This would put water, an essential to life at the same priority as the NHS, in funding.
Learning from NHS mistakes will allow water supply to be managed for the 21st century.
The nhs hasn't learned from.its mistakes. So I don't get this point. It's a Blackmore of public finance. That's consumed more tax revenue year on year since its inception
You are correct the NHS hasn't that is why I said, "learning from the mistakes of the NHS", as in not make the same mistakes.
But if you can't change the NHS now while in public ownership I've no idea why you think water would be different?
Blank canvas in public ownership, learning from the corporate world in terms of best practices and finally building a sustainable cost model to fund it that has the backing of the public.
Certain elements would need to be outsourced, customer services as I mentioned earlier
But it's not a blank canvas though. You could do the same with the post office and the nhs now but they choose not to refom( even with rail companies taken back under public ownership). Sorry but if time and time again they get worse. I just dont see * next time it'll be different* working.
Having worked on many M&A's I can say that a privatisation success would be achievable by following what has gone before.
The post office and the NHS are bad examples of why it wouldn't work, we can do without the post office and it is only still around because of bad product decisions that have meant they can't simply close. The NHS was designed to support a public that no longer exists, it broke under the weight of its own early success, became a pit of complexity and here we are.
Rip up the old run-book and outsource the core elements of management as I have mentioned. Using corporate strategy and management, to underpin the service will bring the change required. Charging models that are designed to future proof the infrastructure from the get go, creating 5 - 10 - 15 year investment plans.
I like the enthusiasm but history has taught us this simply isn't true for me.
To me what your posting sounds a lot like " yeah but that wasn't real socialism" type of excuse.
Time and again. There's been opportunity for reform. And to take learnings from the private sector. It doesn't happen. Same with any government spending on hs2, snp and its ferries.
They overrun they cost double or triple budget.
Councils regularly over spend
I think the poor management is simply ingrained as well as using approved suppliers etc.
I can't see water suddenly bucking the trend of a public sector company bot racking up debt.
"
Please don't think for one minute that I'm advocating socialism as an answer, I'm advocating the ownership of the infrastructure to be at the state level, the running of the core operation to be managed from at an outsourced corporate level and pricing / maintenance structure managed through tax. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 47 weeks ago
|
Having worked in both the public and private sector at various times in my life (predominantly on the railway, which is was privatised in order to ‘do away’ with public sector excess and waste) I find the notion of the private sector being a bastion of efficiency utterly laughable
I can’t go into details here (I know where my bread is buttered) but some of the inefficient management practices in some private sector businesses (and what they allow staff to get away with) are laughable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Having worked in both the public and private sector at various times in my life (predominantly on the railway, which is was privatised in order to ‘do away’ with public sector excess and waste) I find the notion of the private sector being a bastion of efficiency utterly laughable
I can’t go into details here (I know where my bread is buttered) but some of the inefficient management practices in some private sector businesses (and what they allow staff to get away with) are laughable. "
Maybe from your perspective, and probably influenced by poor vendor selection at the state level. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 47 weeks ago
|
"Having worked in both the public and private sector at various times in my life (predominantly on the railway, which is was privatised in order to ‘do away’ with public sector excess and waste) I find the notion of the private sector being a bastion of efficiency utterly laughable
I can’t go into details here (I know where my bread is buttered) but some of the inefficient management practices in some private sector businesses (and what they allow staff to get away with) are laughable.
Maybe from your perspective, and probably influenced by poor vendor selection at the state level. "
Indeed, it’s as if the whole privatisation of essential sectors is an unworkable, expensive mess, or something.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We don't have that problem in Scotland as we don't have water meters. Seems weird that you pay like that in England and Wales "
That's because in Scotland the water companies are still in public ownership and are not a for profit organisation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We don't have that problem in Scotland as we don't have water meters. Seems weird that you pay like that in England and Wales
Everyone pays the same in Scotland, no matter how much water you use or don’t?
I could google this but I will ask here, do you ever get hosepipe bans?"
Water is included in our council tax as it is still publicly owned.... Never had a hose pipe ban on the forty odd years I have lived here as far as I know. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In this case for water the Magic money tree =
Over last 35yrs water companies have paid £60bn in dividends.
Dividends can only be paid from post tax profits.
In simple terms...
To calculate post tax profits you first deduct all operating costs (inc salaries, maintenance, product components like chemicals in this case etc). You then pay Corporation Tax. Any sensible company build up reserves for investment. Then you can declare a dividend.
So the £60bn over 35 years would have been in addition to any investment that was actually made."
But it's run by a private company paying those.
You are saying private companies operate in the same efficiency as public.
This is not the case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Forgot to add, taxing on an income based affordability will require confidence that the tax £ is being managed correctly, hence the above structure.
This would put water, an essential to life at the same priority as the NHS, in funding.
Learning from NHS mistakes will allow water supply to be managed for the 21st century.
The nhs hasn't learned from.its mistakes. So I don't get this point. It's a Blackmore of public finance. That's consumed more tax revenue year on year since its inception
You are correct the NHS hasn't that is why I said, "learning from the mistakes of the NHS", as in not make the same mistakes.
But if you can't change the NHS now while in public ownership I've no idea why you think water would be different?
Blank canvas in public ownership, learning from the corporate world in terms of best practices and finally building a sustainable cost model to fund it that has the backing of the public.
Certain elements would need to be outsourced, customer services as I mentioned earlier
But it's not a blank canvas though. You could do the same with the post office and the nhs now but they choose not to refom( even with rail companies taken back under public ownership). Sorry but if time and time again they get worse. I just dont see * next time it'll be different* working.
Having worked on many M&A's I can say that a privatisation success would be achievable by following what has gone before.
The post office and the NHS are bad examples of why it wouldn't work, we can do without the post office and it is only still around because of bad product decisions that have meant they can't simply close. The NHS was designed to support a public that no longer exists, it broke under the weight of its own early success, became a pit of complexity and here we are.
Rip up the old run-book and outsource the core elements of management as I have mentioned. Using corporate strategy and management, to underpin the service will bring the change required. Charging models that are designed to future proof the infrastructure from the get go, creating 5 - 10 - 15 year investment plans.
I like the enthusiasm but history has taught us this simply isn't true for me.
To me what your posting sounds a lot like " yeah but that wasn't real socialism" type of excuse.
Time and again. There's been opportunity for reform. And to take learnings from the private sector. It doesn't happen. Same with any government spending on hs2, snp and its ferries.
They overrun they cost double or triple budget.
Councils regularly over spend
I think the poor management is simply ingrained as well as using approved suppliers etc.
I can't see water suddenly bucking the trend of a public sector company bot racking up debt.
Please don't think for one minute that I'm advocating socialism as an answer, I'm advocating the ownership of the infrastructure to be at the state level, the running of the core operation to be managed from at an outsourced corporate level and pricing / maintenance structure managed through tax."
No I wasn't
I was equovalencing you're " blank canvas and start anew" to the way socialism is often talked about. " it was never real socilism"
There's no reason all those examples I gave couldn't re work their models to not become babkrupt. But bankrupt they went and consuming more public spending. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Having worked in both the public and private sector at various times in my life (predominantly on the railway, which is was privatised in order to ‘do away’ with public sector excess and waste) I find the notion of the private sector being a bastion of efficiency utterly laughable
I can’t go into details here (I know where my bread is buttered) but some of the inefficient management practices in some private sector businesses (and what they allow staff to get away with) are laughable. "
Re privatised
Again like water.
The railway system was built by private owners and taken by the state. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 47 weeks ago
|
"Having worked in both the public and private sector at various times in my life (predominantly on the railway, which is was privatised in order to ‘do away’ with public sector excess and waste) I find the notion of the private sector being a bastion of efficiency utterly laughable
I can’t go into details here (I know where my bread is buttered) but some of the inefficient management practices in some private sector businesses (and what they allow staff to get away with) are laughable.
Re privatised
Again like water.
The railway system was built by private owners and taken by the state."
And now it’s being run by private companies but costing the state (I.E the taxpayer) more than it ever cost under public ownership. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Why. For 4 decades tbe government couldn't improve it before selling it off.
Part kf the sell for was thay they couldn't afford to fix the leaks. This was the priority.
Of course they could afford to do it. They *chose* not to do so. Same with upgrading the railways.
We saw where money printing got us after corona. What money is this?
How do other nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services?
They don't.
Have a look at countries drinking water and sewage cspability
You’re claiming that no nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services? None at all?
You’re a joker.
Read back what I said.
Keeping this on water.
Private and public. How many countries have 100% clean drinking water and have ghigh rated servers?
Read back what I asked first - I asked about services.
And also look at the (public) water system in Germany.
We are talking about water. So let's keep it on point.
Germany ...7% of rural homes don't have sanitation.
That's 700k people without access to sewerage systems.
Their water and sanitation tarriffs are higher?
And thisnis the best e.u economy?
And in the U.K it’s around 4%. What’s your point?
How much is the average water bill in each nation? How much water is wasted by the systems? How much raw sewerage is pumped out to sea respectively?
"
Nope I am sorry but not 4% |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 47 weeks ago
|
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Why. For 4 decades tbe government couldn't improve it before selling it off.
Part kf the sell for was thay they couldn't afford to fix the leaks. This was the priority.
Of course they could afford to do it. They *chose* not to do so. Same with upgrading the railways.
We saw where money printing got us after corona. What money is this?
How do other nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services?
They don't.
Have a look at countries drinking water and sewage cspability
You’re claiming that no nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services? None at all?
You’re a joker.
Read back what I said.
Keeping this on water.
Private and public. How many countries have 100% clean drinking water and have ghigh rated servers?
Read back what I asked first - I asked about services.
And also look at the (public) water system in Germany.
We are talking about water. So let's keep it on point.
Germany ...7% of rural homes don't have sanitation.
That's 700k people without access to sewerage systems.
Their water and sanitation tarriffs are higher?
And thisnis the best e.u economy?
And in the U.K it’s around 4%. What’s your point?
How much is the average water bill in each nation? How much water is wasted by the systems? How much raw sewerage is pumped out to sea respectively?
Nope I am sorry but not 4%"
That’s the figure o saw online. Can you disprove it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Why. For 4 decades tbe government couldn't improve it before selling it off.
Part kf the sell for was thay they couldn't afford to fix the leaks. This was the priority.
Of course they could afford to do it. They *chose* not to do so. Same with upgrading the railways.
We saw where money printing got us after corona. What money is this?
How do other nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services?
They don't.
Have a look at countries drinking water and sewage cspability
You’re claiming that no nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services? None at all?
You’re a joker.
Read back what I said.
Keeping this on water.
Private and public. How many countries have 100% clean drinking water and have ghigh rated servers?
Read back what I asked first - I asked about services.
And also look at the (public) water system in Germany.
We are talking about water. So let's keep it on point.
Germany ...7% of rural homes don't have sanitation.
That's 700k people without access to sewerage systems.
Their water and sanitation tarriffs are higher?
And thisnis the best e.u economy?
And in the U.K it’s around 4%. What’s your point?
How much is the average water bill in each nation? How much water is wasted by the systems? How much raw sewerage is pumped out to sea respectively?
Nope I am sorry but not 4%
That’s the figure o saw online. Can you disprove it?"
I think you've made a booboo. I would suggest you re Google and re read your source. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 47 weeks ago
|
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Why. For 4 decades tbe government couldn't improve it before selling it off.
Part kf the sell for was thay they couldn't afford to fix the leaks. This was the priority.
Of course they could afford to do it. They *chose* not to do so. Same with upgrading the railways.
We saw where money printing got us after corona. What money is this?
How do other nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services?
They don't.
Have a look at countries drinking water and sewage cspability
You’re claiming that no nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services? None at all?
You’re a joker.
Read back what I said.
Keeping this on water.
Private and public. How many countries have 100% clean drinking water and have ghigh rated servers?
Read back what I asked first - I asked about services.
And also look at the (public) water system in Germany.
We are talking about water. So let's keep it on point.
Germany ...7% of rural homes don't have sanitation.
That's 700k people without access to sewerage systems.
Their water and sanitation tarriffs are higher?
And thisnis the best e.u economy?
And in the U.K it’s around 4%. What’s your point?
How much is the average water bill in each nation? How much water is wasted by the systems? How much raw sewerage is pumped out to sea respectively?
Nope I am sorry but not 4%
That’s the figure o saw online. Can you disprove it?
I think you've made a booboo. I would suggest you re Google and re read your source."
I just rechecked.
Again I ask, can you disprove it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Why. For 4 decades tbe government couldn't improve it before selling it off.
Part kf the sell for was thay they couldn't afford to fix the leaks. This was the priority.
Of course they could afford to do it. They *chose* not to do so. Same with upgrading the railways.
We saw where money printing got us after corona. What money is this?
How do other nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services?
They don't.
Have a look at countries drinking water and sewage cspability
You’re claiming that no nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services? None at all?
You’re a joker.
Read back what I said.
Keeping this on water.
Private and public. How many countries have 100% clean drinking water and have ghigh rated servers?
Read back what I asked first - I asked about services.
And also look at the (public) water system in Germany.
We are talking about water. So let's keep it on point.
Germany ...7% of rural homes don't have sanitation.
That's 700k people without access to sewerage systems.
Their water and sanitation tarriffs are higher?
And thisnis the best e.u economy?
And in the U.K it’s around 4%. What’s your point?
How much is the average water bill in each nation? How much water is wasted by the systems? How much raw sewerage is pumped out to sea respectively?
Nope I am sorry but not 4%
That’s the figure o saw online. Can you disprove it?
I think you've made a booboo. I would suggest you re Google and re read your source.
I just rechecked.
Again I ask, can you disprove it? "
It's pretty much 100% given the laws surrounding it.
I think what you've done is misunderstood the text you are reading. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 47 weeks ago
|
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Why. For 4 decades tbe government couldn't improve it before selling it off.
Part kf the sell for was thay they couldn't afford to fix the leaks. This was the priority.
Of course they could afford to do it. They *chose* not to do so. Same with upgrading the railways.
We saw where money printing got us after corona. What money is this?
How do other nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services?
They don't.
Have a look at countries drinking water and sewage cspability
You’re claiming that no nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services? None at all?
You’re a joker.
Read back what I said.
Keeping this on water.
Private and public. How many countries have 100% clean drinking water and have ghigh rated servers?
Read back what I asked first - I asked about services.
And also look at the (public) water system in Germany.
We are talking about water. So let's keep it on point.
Germany ...7% of rural homes don't have sanitation.
That's 700k people without access to sewerage systems.
Their water and sanitation tarriffs are higher?
And thisnis the best e.u economy?
And in the U.K it’s around 4%. What’s your point?
How much is the average water bill in each nation? How much water is wasted by the systems? How much raw sewerage is pumped out to sea respectively?
Nope I am sorry but not 4%
That’s the figure o saw online. Can you disprove it?
I think you've made a booboo. I would suggest you re Google and re read your source.
I just rechecked.
Again I ask, can you disprove it?
It's pretty much 100% given the laws surrounding it.
I think what you've done is misunderstood the text you are reading."
‘Pretty much’? That’s not disproving anything now, is it?
It’s ok dude. I can wait for you to back it up. No rush |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley I am not playing your game. If in your mind that equates to some kind of victory, then so be it. Selling a national asset with complete debt write off and a further £1.5bn in incentives is a sweet deal in anyone’s book (except it seems yours). Arcadia is false equivalence!
If you want to start asking questions then how much has been paid in dividends to shareholders by the water companies since privatisation?
The required investment to provide a suitable infrastructure to reflect modern needs should have come before dividends. Nobody is disputing whether there was under investment while in public ownership but if the investors didn’t like the responsibilities of owning a utility then don’t invest.
Around 60 bn in the 35 years or so was paid by the companies. So then. Let's see what other group of 10 listed companies paid out in that time?
You turn
And it's not a game.
If you take on a failing company its debt doesn't matter if it can't turn a profit. Which seemingly the water companies couldn't do as they ere in debt to the government.they couldn't break even. I wouldnt call that a bargain.
The investment should have come from the government in the 4 decades before it was sold off for being so poorly run and in debt.and shareholders and I vectors sadly have a right to a dividend. As long as the companies are investing and improving the infrastructure MORE than the uk gov ever did
I dont see the problem.
The problem is the companies are not investing or looking after the infrastructure, and bills are rising.
There are approx 34 million people working in England and Wales, I would suggest state owned and a water tax based on earnings would be welcomed by the majority of the country.
That would mean everyone is paying for water based on affordability, rather than a household charge.
But you have to look at how it was run when state owned.
The government couldn't afford to keep it going any more. Hence the privatisation and writing off the debt.
They literally sold the " asset" because they couldn't afford to run and manage it a anymore
That should be an easier problem to fix today, that is was back then.
Customers service, outsource it and make that area accountable for managing the infrastructure accountabilities.
Keep the infrastructure owned and maintained in house.
That way the already established industry standards for commercial and customer satisfaction, hold the state to task.
Why. For 4 decades tbe government couldn't improve it before selling it off.
Part kf the sell for was thay they couldn't afford to fix the leaks. This was the priority.
Of course they could afford to do it. They *chose* not to do so. Same with upgrading the railways.
We saw where money printing got us after corona. What money is this?
How do other nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services?
They don't.
Have a look at countries drinking water and sewage cspability
You’re claiming that no nations manage to have effective and efficient state run services? None at all?
You’re a joker.
Read back what I said.
Keeping this on water.
Private and public. How many countries have 100% clean drinking water and have ghigh rated servers?
Read back what I asked first - I asked about services.
And also look at the (public) water system in Germany.
We are talking about water. So let's keep it on point.
Germany ...7% of rural homes don't have sanitation.
That's 700k people without access to sewerage systems.
Their water and sanitation tarriffs are higher?
And thisnis the best e.u economy?
And in the U.K it’s around 4%. What’s your point?
How much is the average water bill in each nation? How much water is wasted by the systems? How much raw sewerage is pumped out to sea respectively?
Nope I am sorry but not 4%
That’s the figure o saw online. Can you disprove it?
I think you've made a booboo. I would suggest you re Google and re read your source.
I just rechecked.
Again I ask, can you disprove it?
It's pretty much 100% given the laws surrounding it.
I think what you've done is misunderstood the text you are reading.
‘Pretty much’? That’s not disproving anything now, is it?
It’s ok dude. I can wait for you to back it up. No rush"
You can't ow have septic tanks and must be connected to a drainage system when building new homes.
What I think you've done is confuse no connection at all. With private and public connections. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"In this case for water the Magic money tree =
Over last 35yrs water companies have paid £60bn in dividends.
Dividends can only be paid from post tax profits.
In simple terms...
To calculate post tax profits you first deduct all operating costs (inc salaries, maintenance, product components like chemicals in this case etc). You then pay Corporation Tax. Any sensible company build up reserves for investment. Then you can declare a dividend.
So the £60bn over 35 years would have been in addition to any investment that was actually made.
But it's run by a private company paying those.
You are saying private companies operate in the same efficiency as public.
This is not the case."
I disagree. Even if they had been leas efficient (which is debatable) they would still have not paid dividends to shareholders and could have reinvested.
Also (I am not sure on this so would need to check) if the Water Companies were state owned they would not be subject to Corporation Tax so that could be reinvested also! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"In this case for water the Magic money tree =
Over last 35yrs water companies have paid £60bn in dividends.
Dividends can only be paid from post tax profits.
In simple terms...
To calculate post tax profits you first deduct all operating costs (inc salaries, maintenance, product components like chemicals in this case etc). You then pay Corporation Tax. Any sensible company build up reserves for investment. Then you can declare a dividend.
So the £60bn over 35 years would have been in addition to any investment that was actually made.
But it's run by a private company paying those.
You are saying private companies operate in the same efficiency as public.
This is not the case.
I disagree. Even if they had been leas efficient (which is debatable) they would still have not paid dividends to shareholders and could have reinvested.
Also (I am not sure on this so would need to check) if the Water Companies were state owned they would not be subject to Corporation Tax so that could be reinvested also! "
Checked and no they would not pay CT. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In this case for water the Magic money tree =
Over last 35yrs water companies have paid £60bn in dividends.
Dividends can only be paid from post tax profits.
In simple terms...
To calculate post tax profits you first deduct all operating costs (inc salaries, maintenance, product components like chemicals in this case etc). You then pay Corporation Tax. Any sensible company build up reserves for investment. Then you can declare a dividend.
So the £60bn over 35 years would have been in addition to any investment that was actually made.
But it's run by a private company paying those.
You are saying private companies operate in the same efficiency as public.
This is not the case.
I disagree. Even if they had been leas efficient (which is debatable) they would still have not paid dividends to shareholders and could have reinvested.
Also (I am not sure on this so would need to check) if the Water Companies were state owned they would not be subject to Corporation Tax so that could be reinvested also! "
No they wouldnt be subject to corporation tax.
But we know that improvements in leaks have happened since privatisation and that effluent is released less and is now monitored.
All this, while paying out dividends, paying corporation tax and investing and improving the model which was debt ridden and had to be sold off when state run and couldn't finance the repair of leaks
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"We don't have that problem in Scotland as we don't have water meters. Seems weird that you pay like that in England and Wales
Everyone pays the same in Scotland, no matter how much water you use or don’t?
I could google this but I will ask here, do you ever get hosepipe bans?
Water is included in our council tax as it is still publicly owned.... Never had a hose pipe ban on the forty odd years I have lived here as far as I know."
Thanks for the info 
Do you pay more the higher the council tax band or is at a fixed cost across the board?
Seems to be working okay in Scotland, so why can’t it work in England |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"In this case for water the Magic money tree =
Over last 35yrs water companies have paid £60bn in dividends.
Dividends can only be paid from post tax profits.
In simple terms...
To calculate post tax profits you first deduct all operating costs (inc salaries, maintenance, product components like chemicals in this case etc). You then pay Corporation Tax. Any sensible company build up reserves for investment. Then you can declare a dividend.
So the £60bn over 35 years would have been in addition to any investment that was actually made.
But it's run by a private company paying those.
You are saying private companies operate in the same efficiency as public.
This is not the case.
I disagree. Even if they had been leas efficient (which is debatable) they would still have not paid dividends to shareholders and could have reinvested.
Also (I am not sure on this so would need to check) if the Water Companies were state owned they would not be subject to Corporation Tax so that could be reinvested also!
No they wouldnt be subject to corporation tax.
But we know that improvements in leaks have happened since privatisation and that effluent is released less and is now monitored.
All this, while paying out dividends, paying corporation tax and investing and improving the model which was debt ridden and had to be sold off when state run and couldn't finance the repair of leaks
"
Except we have no idea if subsequent govts after Thatcher would not have tackled this with water companies in state ownership. It is pointless looking back 50 years and saying “look what they did then”.
Also, you keep pointing to improvement in leaks. Great! So they should. The big issue right now is raw sewage and our system being unable to handle that and excess rain water!
Saying they’ve done all this is a nice distraction but clearly they have not done enough or we would not be having this discussion. Imagine if all those dividends had been reinvested?
And effluent release has increased over last couple of years (BTW the Environment Agency have sensors to detect this happening but due to their budgets being cut have had a challenge replacing faulty or broken ones). You may say it was worse before but A) do we have data to prove that and B) we live in a different world now where pollution is less acceptable.
You may be happy with environmental damage in the name of the almighty march of capitalism and shareholder value. Personally I think a more balanced approach is needed.
Fine the shit out of the water companies I say and make shareholders absorb the cost of fixing things. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We don't have that problem in Scotland as we don't have water meters. Seems weird that you pay like that in England and Wales
Everyone pays the same in Scotland, no matter how much water you use or don’t?
I could google this but I will ask here, do you ever get hosepipe bans?
Water is included in our council tax as it is still publicly owned.... Never had a hose pipe ban on the forty odd years I have lived here as far as I know.
Thanks for the info
Do you pay more the higher the council tax band or is at a fixed cost across the board?
Seems to be working okay in Scotland, so why can’t it work in England "
In England and Wales companies across 2015-2020 invested 44bn.
In Scotland it will be 4.5bn across 6 years.
Half of that expense will be debt raised by the Scottish government.
This puts it in line of debt service management of English water companies.
This was on old borrowing costs in 2020 whichh have since gone up.
Given curremt markets.scottis future trust which analysed the plan suggests thisnwould mean the governmemts plan is highly geared.
There's a full working paper on this
Scottish water future funding options.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So to be really basic here from what I have learnt from this thread. When the water was run by the government they managed to rack up a large debt while having a bad service. On the upside, if they had made a profit it would not have gone to shareholders. When privatised it is changed from a loss maker and now making a profit, paying corporation tax ect. On the downside shareholders get to benefit while Bill's rise. It's true to say that we don't know if governments would have improved the system like the private companies did but the only reference we have is not encouraging. Is it possible for the government to buy the majority of shares but it still run by the private companies. However the government could insist on either putting all profits into updates or lowering bills or bit of both. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm amazed at the number of people I recognise from other threads where they regularly post to moan about government incompetence, coming in here to demand that the water companies should be run by the government. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple 47 weeks ago
North West |
"I'm amazed at the number of people I recognise from other threads where they regularly post to moan about government incompetence, coming in here to demand that the water companies should be run by the government."
There is a difference between being State owned and State run.
Unfortunately our FPTP form of choosing Governments will never be compatible with State owning anything as the assets will get used as betting chips every time there is an election. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"I'm amazed at the number of people I recognise from other threads where they regularly post to moan about government incompetence, coming in here to demand that the water companies should be run by the government."
I think it is recognised that essentials such as water and energy should not be put into the hands of companies that are profit first and personally not a foreign investor / company.
I would never advocate the government owning and running it, we have seen where that ended up.
Public owned utilities, with core operations outsourced to class leading corporate providers.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Something that seems to have escaped people in this thread and others whe I have mentioned it. I ams use they just gloss over it as an inconvenience
The waterways started off as private. They were never originally owned by the government. There seems a complete lack of knowledge on this subjects history.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Something that seems to have escaped people in this thread and others whe I have mentioned it. I ams use they just gloss over it as an inconvenience
The waterways started off as private. They were never originally owned by the government. There seems a complete lack of knowledge on this subjects history.
"
I read your post but as I said the knowledge and structures of running such things is better known. I would never push for the government to run a something like a water company, it would be a disaster, own it and let those that know what they are doing run it.
This model works very well in the corporate world |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Something that seems to have escaped people in this thread and others whe I have mentioned it. I ams use they just gloss over it as an inconvenience
The waterways started off as private. They were never originally owned by the government. There seems a complete lack of knowledge on this subjects history.
I read your post but as I said the knowledge and structures of running such things is better known. I would never push for the government to run a something like a water company, it would be a disaster, own it and let those that know what they are doing run it.
This model works very well in the corporate world"
I was meaning more that there seemed to be this thought that the government's created these networks from catch the Maggie sold them.
This was not the case the networks were created by private cimpanies then taken by an act of Parliament. They were re privatised , not privatised.
They would be nationalised. Not re nationalised. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Something that seems to have escaped people in this thread and others whe I have mentioned it. I ams use they just gloss over it as an inconvenience
The waterways started off as private. They were never originally owned by the government. There seems a complete lack of knowledge on this subjects history.
I read your post but as I said the knowledge and structures of running such things is better known. I would never push for the government to run a something like a water company, it would be a disaster, own it and let those that know what they are doing run it.
This model works very well in the corporate world
I was meaning more that there seemed to be this thought that the government's created these networks from catch the Maggie sold them.
This was not the case the networks were created by private cimpanies then taken by an act of Parliament. They were re privatised , not privatised.
They would be nationalised. Not re nationalised."
ah, got you. It is very similar to the Fire brigade, many would not associate that to being privately owned to begin with. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Something that seems to have escaped people in this thread and others whe I have mentioned it. I ams use they just gloss over it as an inconvenience
The waterways started off as private. They were never originally owned by the government. There seems a complete lack of knowledge on this subjects history.
I read your post but as I said the knowledge and structures of running such things is better known. I would never push for the government to run a something like a water company, it would be a disaster, own it and let those that know what they are doing run it.
This model works very well in the corporate world
I was meaning more that there seemed to be this thought that the government's created these networks from catch the Maggie sold them.
This was not the case the networks were created by private cimpanies then taken by an act of Parliament. They were re privatised , not privatised.
They would be nationalised. Not re nationalised.
ah, got you. It is very similar to the Fire brigade, many would not associate that to being privately owned to begin with. "
What you are missing Morley is that there were many many examples of true altruism by the rich and powerful during Victorian times. There was a recognition of the importance of public health with access to sanitation and clean water a priority. It wasn’t totally altruistic of course because a healthy population is also a more productive workforce. Free market capitalism has clearly progressed in the last 100+ years and became increasingly focused on capital growth and decreasingly altruistic. The Victorians were very forward thinking (ironically when you consider how Conservatives tend to hark back to bygone eras). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Something that seems to have escaped people in this thread and others whe I have mentioned it. I ams use they just gloss over it as an inconvenience
The waterways started off as private. They were never originally owned by the government. There seems a complete lack of knowledge on this subjects history.
I read your post but as I said the knowledge and structures of running such things is better known. I would never push for the government to run a something like a water company, it would be a disaster, own it and let those that know what they are doing run it.
This model works very well in the corporate world
I was meaning more that there seemed to be this thought that the government's created these networks from catch the Maggie sold them.
This was not the case the networks were created by private cimpanies then taken by an act of Parliament. They were re privatised , not privatised.
They would be nationalised. Not re nationalised.
ah, got you. It is very similar to the Fire brigade, many would not associate that to being privately owned to begin with.
What you are missing Morley is that there were many many examples of true altruism by the rich and powerful during Victorian times. There was a recognition of the importance of public health with access to sanitation and clean water a priority. It wasn’t totally altruistic of course because a healthy population is also a more productive workforce. Free market capitalism has clearly progressed in the last 100+ years and became increasingly focused on capital growth and decreasingly altruistic. The Victorians were very forward thinking (ironically when you consider how Conservatives tend to hark back to bygone eras)."
They were never built by the tax payer for the tax payer. They were taken.
That fact seems to skip people. It's often the same with rail ways.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Something that seems to have escaped people in this thread and others whe I have mentioned it. I ams use they just gloss over it as an inconvenience
The waterways started off as private. They were never originally owned by the government. There seems a complete lack of knowledge on this subjects history.
I read your post but as I said the knowledge and structures of running such things is better known. I would never push for the government to run a something like a water company, it would be a disaster, own it and let those that know what they are doing run it.
This model works very well in the corporate world
I was meaning more that there seemed to be this thought that the government's created these networks from catch the Maggie sold them.
This was not the case the networks were created by private cimpanies then taken by an act of Parliament. They were re privatised , not privatised.
They would be nationalised. Not re nationalised.
ah, got you. It is very similar to the Fire brigade, many would not associate that to being privately owned to begin with. "
Yes there seems to be a deep. flaw in many people understandings of these.
The impression many government off is they believe the uk gov off the back of.the taxpayer created these industries then the evil tories sold them off.
This simply isn't the case.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Something that seems to have escaped people in this thread and others whe I have mentioned it. I ams use they just gloss over it as an inconvenience
The waterways started off as private. They were never originally owned by the government. There seems a complete lack of knowledge on this subjects history.
I read your post but as I said the knowledge and structures of running such things is better known. I would never push for the government to run a something like a water company, it would be a disaster, own it and let those that know what they are doing run it.
This model works very well in the corporate world
I was meaning more that there seemed to be this thought that the government's created these networks from catch the Maggie sold them.
This was not the case the networks were created by private cimpanies then taken by an act of Parliament. They were re privatised , not privatised.
They would be nationalised. Not re nationalised.
ah, got you. It is very similar to the Fire brigade, many would not associate that to being privately owned to begin with.
Yes there seems to be a deep. flaw in many people understandings of these.
The impression many government off is they believe the uk gov off the back of.the taxpayer created these industries then the evil tories sold them off.
This simply isn't the case.
"
I don’t. My history degree did teach me a few things! The history is well known as is the fact that Govts woke up to the fact that utilities and infrastructure that are essential to the well being of the country should be controlled by the state. Then in the 80s someone saw an opportunity for money making at the expense of taxpayers/consumers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Something that seems to have escaped people in this thread and others whe I have mentioned it. I ams use they just gloss over it as an inconvenience
The waterways started off as private. They were never originally owned by the government. There seems a complete lack of knowledge on this subjects history.
I read your post but as I said the knowledge and structures of running such things is better known. I would never push for the government to run a something like a water company, it would be a disaster, own it and let those that know what they are doing run it.
This model works very well in the corporate world
I was meaning more that there seemed to be this thought that the government's created these networks from catch the Maggie sold them.
This was not the case the networks were created by private cimpanies then taken by an act of Parliament. They were re privatised , not privatised.
They would be nationalised. Not re nationalised.
ah, got you. It is very similar to the Fire brigade, many would not associate that to being privately owned to begin with.
Yes there seems to be a deep. flaw in many people understandings of these.
The impression many government off is they believe the uk gov off the back of.the taxpayer created these industries then the evil tories sold them off.
This simply isn't the case.
I don’t. My history degree did teach me a few things! The history is well known as is the fact that Govts woke up to the fact that utilities and infrastructure that are essential to the well being of the country should be controlled by the state. Then in the 80s someone saw an opportunity for money making at the expense of taxpayers/consumers."
Expense?
How?
We just had a whole thread on how the private sector operates them better |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Something that seems to have escaped people in this thread and others whe I have mentioned it. I ams use they just gloss over it as an inconvenience
The waterways started off as private. They were never originally owned by the government. There seems a complete lack of knowledge on this subjects history.
I read your post but as I said the knowledge and structures of running such things is better known. I would never push for the government to run a something like a water company, it would be a disaster, own it and let those that know what they are doing run it.
This model works very well in the corporate world
I was meaning more that there seemed to be this thought that the government's created these networks from catch the Maggie sold them.
This was not the case the networks were created by private cimpanies then taken by an act of Parliament. They were re privatised , not privatised.
They would be nationalised. Not re nationalised.
ah, got you. It is very similar to the Fire brigade, many would not associate that to being privately owned to begin with.
Yes there seems to be a deep. flaw in many people understandings of these.
The impression many government off is they believe the uk gov off the back of.the taxpayer created these industries then the evil tories sold them off.
This simply isn't the case.
I don’t. My history degree did teach me a few things! The history is well known as is the fact that Govts woke up to the fact that utilities and infrastructure that are essential to the well being of the country should be controlled by the state. Then in the 80s someone saw an opportunity for money making at the expense of taxpayers/consumers.
Expense?
How?
We just had a whole thread on how the private sector operates them better"
No we have had a thread with a lot of posts from you saying they operate them better. This is demonstrably true from the view of generating dividends for shareholders but not from the case of an adequate level of investment to modernise the infrastructure over 35yrs to stop shit being dumped in huge quantities into our waterways. Profit over environment and public health is not a win in my book. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Something that seems to have escaped people in this thread and others whe I have mentioned it. I ams use they just gloss over it as an inconvenience
The waterways started off as private. They were never originally owned by the government. There seems a complete lack of knowledge on this subjects history.
I read your post but as I said the knowledge and structures of running such things is better known. I would never push for the government to run a something like a water company, it would be a disaster, own it and let those that know what they are doing run it.
This model works very well in the corporate world
I was meaning more that there seemed to be this thought that the government's created these networks from catch the Maggie sold them.
This was not the case the networks were created by private cimpanies then taken by an act of Parliament. They were re privatised , not privatised.
They would be nationalised. Not re nationalised.
ah, got you. It is very similar to the Fire brigade, many would not associate that to being privately owned to begin with.
Yes there seems to be a deep. flaw in many people understandings of these.
The impression many government off is they believe the uk gov off the back of.the taxpayer created these industries then the evil tories sold them off.
This simply isn't the case.
I don’t. My history degree did teach me a few things! The history is well known as is the fact that Govts woke up to the fact that utilities and infrastructure that are essential to the well being of the country should be controlled by the state. Then in the 80s someone saw an opportunity for money making at the expense of taxpayers/consumers.
Expense?
How?
We just had a whole thread on how the private sector operates them better
No we have had a thread with a lot of posts from you saying they operate them better. This is demonstrably true from the view of generating dividends for shareholders but not from the case of an adequate level of investment to modernise the infrastructure over 35yrs to stop shit being dumped in huge quantities into our waterways. Profit over environment and public health is not a win in my book."
But we discussed investment remember.
Remember the bit about less leaking. Better sanitation.
We compared vs Scottish gov.
I even told people the Scottish working paper.
We pay less than Germany. When some 1 tried making that case and got the "ownership" numbers confused and never came back on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Something that seems to have escaped people in this thread and others whe I have mentioned it. I ams use they just gloss over it as an inconvenience
The waterways started off as private. They were never originally owned by the government. There seems a complete lack of knowledge on this subjects history.
I read your post but as I said the knowledge and structures of running such things is better known. I would never push for the government to run a something like a water company, it would be a disaster, own it and let those that know what they are doing run it.
This model works very well in the corporate world
I was meaning more that there seemed to be this thought that the government's created these networks from catch the Maggie sold them.
This was not the case the networks were created by private cimpanies then taken by an act of Parliament. They were re privatised , not privatised.
They would be nationalised. Not re nationalised.
ah, got you. It is very similar to the Fire brigade, many would not associate that to being privately owned to begin with.
Yes there seems to be a deep. flaw in many people understandings of these.
The impression many government off is they believe the uk gov off the back of.the taxpayer created these industries then the evil tories sold them off.
This simply isn't the case.
I don’t. My history degree did teach me a few things! The history is well known as is the fact that Govts woke up to the fact that utilities and infrastructure that are essential to the well being of the country should be controlled by the state. Then in the 80s someone saw an opportunity for money making at the expense of taxpayers/consumers.
Expense?
How?
We just had a whole thread on how the private sector operates them better
No we have had a thread with a lot of posts from you saying they operate them better. This is demonstrably true from the view of generating dividends for shareholders but not from the case of an adequate level of investment to modernise the infrastructure over 35yrs to stop shit being dumped in huge quantities into our waterways. Profit over environment and public health is not a win in my book.
But we discussed investment remember.
Remember the bit about less leaking. Better sanitation.
We compared vs Scottish gov.
I even told people the Scottish working paper.
We pay less than Germany. When some 1 tried making that case and got the "ownership" numbers confused and never came back on."
And I said £60bn in dividends (thanks to you looking it up) that will have come from post tax net profit on top of the level of investment actually made. Even if you waggle your finger in the air and say nationalised water companies would be only half as good that is still £30bn of investment that never happened (let alone executive pay and bonuses that would have been dramatically less). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
The perfect example of the government not being great at managing services is BT, terrible service locked into going nowhere fast, high cost and poor customer experience. Sell off and allowing competitors and we now have some of best telecom services.
Having said that I stand by water should be owned by government and run by private. No point putting water up for competition, you can’t package products it’s a 1 dimensional service offering. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Something that seems to have escaped people in this thread and others whe I have mentioned it. I ams use they just gloss over it as an inconvenience
The waterways started off as private. They were never originally owned by the government. There seems a complete lack of knowledge on this subjects history.
I read your post but as I said the knowledge and structures of running such things is better known. I would never push for the government to run a something like a water company, it would be a disaster, own it and let those that know what they are doing run it.
This model works very well in the corporate world
I was meaning more that there seemed to be this thought that the government's created these networks from catch the Maggie sold them.
This was not the case the networks were created by private cimpanies then taken by an act of Parliament. They were re privatised , not privatised.
They would be nationalised. Not re nationalised.
ah, got you. It is very similar to the Fire brigade, many would not associate that to being privately owned to begin with.
Yes there seems to be a deep. flaw in many people understandings of these.
The impression many government off is they believe the uk gov off the back of.the taxpayer created these industries then the evil tories sold them off.
This simply isn't the case.
I don’t. My history degree did teach me a few things! The history is well known as is the fact that Govts woke up to the fact that utilities and infrastructure that are essential to the well being of the country should be controlled by the state. Then in the 80s someone saw an opportunity for money making at the expense of taxpayers/consumers.
Expense?
How?
We just had a whole thread on how the private sector operates them better
No we have had a thread with a lot of posts from you saying they operate them better. This is demonstrably true from the view of generating dividends for shareholders but not from the case of an adequate level of investment to modernise the infrastructure over 35yrs to stop shit being dumped in huge quantities into our waterways. Profit over environment and public health is not a win in my book.
But we discussed investment remember.
Remember the bit about less leaking. Better sanitation.
We compared vs Scottish gov.
I even told people the Scottish working paper.
We pay less than Germany. When some 1 tried making that case and got the "ownership" numbers confused and never came back on.
And I said £60bn in dividends (thanks to you looking it up) that will have come from post tax net profit on top of the level of investment actually made. Even if you waggle your finger in the air and say nationalised water companies would be only half as good that is still £30bn of investment that never happened (let alone executive pay and bonuses that would have been dramatically less)."
But it's 30bn of investment that wouldn't have happened had tbe private sector nit stumped uo the cash.
You seem to think the private sector should front up and buy a business and bot expect any rapyments? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"The perfect example of the government not being great at managing services is BT, terrible service locked into going nowhere fast, high cost and poor customer experience. Sell off and allowing competitors and we now have some of best telecom services.
Having said that I stand by water should be owned by government and run by private. No point putting water up for competition, you can’t package products it’s a 1 dimensional service offering. "
Yep. Privatisation only works if you can have real competition. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Something that seems to have escaped people in this thread and others whe I have mentioned it. I ams use they just gloss over it as an inconvenience
The waterways started off as private. They were never originally owned by the government. There seems a complete lack of knowledge on this subjects history.
I read your post but as I said the knowledge and structures of running such things is better known. I would never push for the government to run a something like a water company, it would be a disaster, own it and let those that know what they are doing run it.
This model works very well in the corporate world
I was meaning more that there seemed to be this thought that the government's created these networks from catch the Maggie sold them.
This was not the case the networks were created by private cimpanies then taken by an act of Parliament. They were re privatised , not privatised.
They would be nationalised. Not re nationalised.
ah, got you. It is very similar to the Fire brigade, many would not associate that to being privately owned to begin with.
Yes there seems to be a deep. flaw in many people understandings of these.
The impression many government off is they believe the uk gov off the back of.the taxpayer created these industries then the evil tories sold them off.
This simply isn't the case.
I don’t. My history degree did teach me a few things! The history is well known as is the fact that Govts woke up to the fact that utilities and infrastructure that are essential to the well being of the country should be controlled by the state. Then in the 80s someone saw an opportunity for money making at the expense of taxpayers/consumers.
Expense?
How?
We just had a whole thread on how the private sector operates them better
No we have had a thread with a lot of posts from you saying they operate them better. This is demonstrably true from the view of generating dividends for shareholders but not from the case of an adequate level of investment to modernise the infrastructure over 35yrs to stop shit being dumped in huge quantities into our waterways. Profit over environment and public health is not a win in my book.
But we discussed investment remember.
Remember the bit about less leaking. Better sanitation.
We compared vs Scottish gov.
I even told people the Scottish working paper.
We pay less than Germany. When some 1 tried making that case and got the "ownership" numbers confused and never came back on.
And I said £60bn in dividends (thanks to you looking it up) that will have come from post tax net profit on top of the level of investment actually made. Even if you waggle your finger in the air and say nationalised water companies would be only half as good that is still £30bn of investment that never happened (let alone executive pay and bonuses that would have been dramatically less).
But it's 30bn of investment that wouldn't have happened had tbe private sector nit stumped uo the cash.
You seem to think the private sector should front up and buy a business and bot expect any rapyments?"
No I think water should never have been privatised. It is essential for life and should therefore be owned by state ergo the citizens. There should have been minimum thresholds of investment and restrictions on dividends when investment clearly required. If investors don’t like the terms, don’t invest! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Something that seems to have escaped people in this thread and others whe I have mentioned it. I ams use they just gloss over it as an inconvenience
The waterways started off as private. They were never originally owned by the government. There seems a complete lack of knowledge on this subjects history.
I read your post but as I said the knowledge and structures of running such things is better known. I would never push for the government to run a something like a water company, it would be a disaster, own it and let those that know what they are doing run it.
This model works very well in the corporate world
I was meaning more that there seemed to be this thought that the government's created these networks from catch the Maggie sold them.
This was not the case the networks were created by private cimpanies then taken by an act of Parliament. They were re privatised , not privatised.
They would be nationalised. Not re nationalised.
ah, got you. It is very similar to the Fire brigade, many would not associate that to being privately owned to begin with.
Yes there seems to be a deep. flaw in many people understandings of these.
The impression many government off is they believe the uk gov off the back of.the taxpayer created these industries then the evil tories sold them off.
This simply isn't the case.
I don’t. My history degree did teach me a few things! The history is well known as is the fact that Govts woke up to the fact that utilities and infrastructure that are essential to the well being of the country should be controlled by the state. Then in the 80s someone saw an opportunity for money making at the expense of taxpayers/consumers.
Expense?
How?
We just had a whole thread on how the private sector operates them better
No we have had a thread with a lot of posts from you saying they operate them better. This is demonstrably true from the view of generating dividends for shareholders but not from the case of an adequate level of investment to modernise the infrastructure over 35yrs to stop shit being dumped in huge quantities into our waterways. Profit over environment and public health is not a win in my book.
But we discussed investment remember.
Remember the bit about less leaking. Better sanitation.
We compared vs Scottish gov.
I even told people the Scottish working paper.
We pay less than Germany. When some 1 tried making that case and got the "ownership" numbers confused and never came back on.
And I said £60bn in dividends (thanks to you looking it up) that will have come from post tax net profit on top of the level of investment actually made. Even if you waggle your finger in the air and say nationalised water companies would be only half as good that is still £30bn of investment that never happened (let alone executive pay and bonuses that would have been dramatically less).
But it's 30bn of investment that wouldn't have happened had tbe private sector nit stumped uo the cash.
You seem to think the private sector should front up and buy a business and bot expect any rapyments?
No I think water should never have been privatised. It is essential for life and should therefore be owned by state ergo the citizens. There should have been minimum thresholds of investment and restrictions on dividends when investment clearly required. If investors don’t like the terms, don’t invest! "
Cough cough RE privatised. Did we bother discuss this earlier?
You realise how market capping works.
We are seeing it in tje oil and gas sector atm.
With the threats of longer and higher taxes. Multiple firms have already pulled investment from um gas and oil exploration and other projects.
If you cap the dividends and require higher minimum investment each year.
How do you think those re privatisations would have gone in the 80s and 90s?
Remember the 90s was the big growth decade.
If you cap the dividend yield on investment a). What do you think investors do?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"I'd have been happy with the. Not investing. But I think we all k now where the water quality and service would have gone over the last 30 years.
Down the drain.
"
You can’t possibly know that. Too many variables. Are you happy with the amount of shit in our waterways? Loss of blue flag beaches? That all ok? Do you think the water companies have invested enough? What about if they had invested £30bn more and paid half the amount of dividends? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Something that seems to have escaped people in this thread and others whe I have mentioned it. I ams use they just gloss over it as an inconvenience
The waterways started off as private. They were never originally owned by the government. There seems a complete lack of knowledge on this subjects history.
I read your post but as I said the knowledge and structures of running such things is better known. I would never push for the government to run a something like a water company, it would be a disaster, own it and let those that know what they are doing run it.
This model works very well in the corporate world
I was meaning more that there seemed to be this thought that the government's created these networks from catch the Maggie sold them.
This was not the case the networks were created by private cimpanies then taken by an act of Parliament. They were re privatised , not privatised.
They would be nationalised. Not re nationalised.
ah, got you. It is very similar to the Fire brigade, many would not associate that to being privately owned to begin with.
Yes there seems to be a deep. flaw in many people understandings of these.
The impression many government off is they believe the uk gov off the back of.the taxpayer created these industries then the evil tories sold them off.
This simply isn't the case.
I don’t. My history degree did teach me a few things! The history is well known as is the fact that Govts woke up to the fact that utilities and infrastructure that are essential to the well being of the country should be controlled by the state. Then in the 80s someone saw an opportunity for money making at the expense of taxpayers/consumers.
Expense?
How?
We just had a whole thread on how the private sector operates them better
No we have had a thread with a lot of posts from you saying they operate them better. This is demonstrably true from the view of generating dividends for shareholders but not from the case of an adequate level of investment to modernise the infrastructure over 35yrs to stop shit being dumped in huge quantities into our waterways. Profit over environment and public health is not a win in my book.
But we discussed investment remember.
Remember the bit about less leaking. Better sanitation.
We compared vs Scottish gov.
I even told people the Scottish working paper.
We pay less than Germany. When some 1 tried making that case and got the "ownership" numbers confused and never came back on.
And I said £60bn in dividends (thanks to you looking it up) that will have come from post tax net profit on top of the level of investment actually made. Even if you waggle your finger in the air and say nationalised water companies would be only half as good that is still £30bn of investment that never happened (let alone executive pay and bonuses that would have been dramatically less).
But it's 30bn of investment that wouldn't have happened had tbe private sector nit stumped uo the cash.
You seem to think the private sector should front up and buy a business and bot expect any rapyments?
No I think water should never have been privatised. It is essential for life and should therefore be owned by state ergo the citizens. There should have been minimum thresholds of investment and restrictions on dividends when investment clearly required. If investors don’t like the terms, don’t invest!
Cough cough RE privatised. Did we bother discuss this earlier?
You realise how market capping works.
We are seeing it in tje oil and gas sector atm.
With the threats of longer and higher taxes. Multiple firms have already pulled investment from um gas and oil exploration and other projects.
If you cap the dividends and require higher minimum investment each year.
How do you think those re privatisations would have gone in the 80s and 90s?
Remember the 90s was the big growth decade.
If you cap the dividend yield on investment a). What do you think investors do?
"
Sorry RE privatised (though you totally ignored my post on the altruism of the rich and powerful in Victorian era so mea culpa huh?) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'd have been happy with the. Not investing. But I think we all k now where the water quality and service would have gone over the last 30 years.
Down the drain.
You can’t possibly know that. Too many variables. Are you happy with the amount of shit in our waterways? Loss of blue flag beaches? That all ok? Do you think the water companies have invested enough? What about if they had invested £30bn more and paid half the amount of dividends?"
Jave you got the uk total pf blue flag beaches pre 1989 please and we can do a comparison.
Have you got the over flow comparisons pre 1989 please. And we can do tbe comparison.
I think the water companies have invested enough to see a marked change atleast in leals vs public ownership.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"I'd have been happy with the. Not investing. But I think we all k now where the water quality and service would have gone over the last 30 years.
Down the drain.
You can’t possibly know that. Too many variables. Are you happy with the amount of shit in our waterways? Loss of blue flag beaches? That all ok? Do you think the water companies have invested enough? What about if they had invested £30bn more and paid half the amount of dividends?
Jave you got the uk total pf blue flag beaches pre 1989 please and we can do a comparison.
Have you got the over flow comparisons pre 1989 please. And we can do tbe comparison.
I think the water companies have invested enough to see a marked change atleast in leals vs public ownership.
"
I am busy so replies will be sporadic.
The number of Blue Flag beaches and tryinv to make a comparison is a fatuous point. The scheme only launched in the late 80s and by its very nature is progressive so each year more beaches should be added to the scheme as environmental recognition has increased. The issue is losing status. That is criminal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'd have been happy with the. Not investing. But I think we all k now where the water quality and service would have gone over the last 30 years.
Down the drain.
You can’t possibly know that. Too many variables. Are you happy with the amount of shit in our waterways? Loss of blue flag beaches? That all ok? Do you think the water companies have invested enough? What about if they had invested £30bn more and paid half the amount of dividends?
Jave you got the uk total pf blue flag beaches pre 1989 please and we can do a comparison.
Have you got the over flow comparisons pre 1989 please. And we can do tbe comparison.
I think the water companies have invested enough to see a marked change atleast in leals vs public ownership.
I am busy so replies will be sporadic.
The number of Blue Flag beaches and tryinv to make a comparison is a fatuous point. The scheme only launched in the late 80s and by its very nature is progressive so each year more beaches should be added to the scheme as environmental recognition has increased. The issue is losing status. That is criminal."
You said there was a loss of blue flag beaches? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
Morely, you know how you always accuse people of not reading, even when you provide links! Guess what? You didn’t read the BMJ article I linked to above. That is really hypocritical of you!
To make it easy here are some extracts...
1. Having initially starved England and Wales’ regional state owned water and sewerage utilities of much needed public investment to upgrade the infrastructure, her [Thatcher] government privatised these in 1989.
2. For the previous century, water had been treated not as a commodity but as a prerequisite for public health. This is, after all, the country in which John Snow traced the origins of a deadly cholera outbreak in 1850s London to a single water pump in Soho by using ground breaking research that linked the disease to unsanitary water. Only a few decades later, self-made businessman turned politician Joseph Chamberlain argued in relation to control over water and sewerage that, “It is difficult, if not impossible, to combine the citizens’ rights and interests and the private enterprise’s interests, because the private enterprise aims at its natural and justified objective, the biggest possible profit.”
3. When Thatcher transferred ownership of the 10 public water utilities to the private sector, she wrote off their existing debts and threw in some seed money as well. Over the ensuing three decades, the experiment has worked well for investors, but has been disastrous for consumers and the environment.
And as for efficiency...
4. Most water companies are now owned by private equity investors who have used financial engineering to boost shareholder returns via complex corporate structures that often involve tax havens.
5. The companies have borrowed heavily—it is reported that current debt levels are in the order of £56bn for the nine companies in England. Interest payments (£1.3bn in 2019) are passed on to consumers.
6. Meanwhile, £72bn in dividends have been paid to shareholders of parent companies since privatisation. This reportedly amounts to nearly half the sum those companies spent on maintaining and improving the country’s pipes and treatment plants between 1991 and 2019.
7. The companies pay little tax and the remuneration of the bosses of English firms has raised eyebrows—amounting to £58m in pay and benefits over the past five years.
8. Although some investment has gone into maintaining infrastructure, no new water reservoirs have been built in England during the privatised era. It is reported that some land held by the companies has instead been used for house building, and only one new reservoir is under construction—it is planned to be in operation by 2029.
9. Underinvestment in infrastructure comes at a cost. In 2020 it was reported that more than three billion litres, a fifth of the volume used, were lost to leakage every day, and the figure has not improved over the previous 20 years.
10. Investment in sewerage has declined such that only 14% of English rivers meet good ecological status, raising major concerns about public health.
11. In 2021, the environmental performance of England’s nine water and sewerage companies was the worst for years, leading the Environmental Agency to call for prison sentences for chief executives of companies responsible for serious incidents.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"I'd have been happy with the. Not investing. But I think we all k now where the water quality and service would have gone over the last 30 years.
Down the drain.
You can’t possibly know that. Too many variables. Are you happy with the amount of shit in our waterways? Loss of blue flag beaches? That all ok? Do you think the water companies have invested enough? What about if they had invested £30bn more and paid half the amount of dividends?
Jave you got the uk total pf blue flag beaches pre 1989 please and we can do a comparison.
Have you got the over flow comparisons pre 1989 please. And we can do tbe comparison.
I think the water companies have invested enough to see a marked change atleast in leals vs public ownership.
I am busy so replies will be sporadic.
The number of Blue Flag beaches and tryinv to make a comparison is a fatuous point. The scheme only launched in the late 80s and by its very nature is progressive so each year more beaches should be added to the scheme as environmental recognition has increased. The issue is losing status. That is criminal.
You said there was a loss of blue flag beaches?"
“Brighton beach has lost its Blue Flag status after its water quality was downgraded. A stretch of the beach near the Palace Pier, known as Brighton Central, lost the coveted title after the quality of water was reduced from excellent to good.” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'd have been happy with the. Not investing. But I think we all k now where the water quality and service would have gone over the last 30 years.
Down the drain.
You can’t possibly know that. Too many variables. Are you happy with the amount of shit in our waterways? Loss of blue flag beaches? That all ok? Do you think the water companies have invested enough? What about if they had invested £30bn more and paid half the amount of dividends?
Jave you got the uk total pf blue flag beaches pre 1989 please and we can do a comparison.
Have you got the over flow comparisons pre 1989 please. And we can do tbe comparison.
I think the water companies have invested enough to see a marked change atleast in leals vs public ownership.
I am busy so replies will be sporadic.
The number of Blue Flag beaches and tryinv to make a comparison is a fatuous point. The scheme only launched in the late 80s and by its very nature is progressive so each year more beaches should be added to the scheme as environmental recognition has increased. The issue is losing status. That is criminal.
You said there was a loss of blue flag beaches?
“Brighton beach has lost its Blue Flag status after its water quality was downgraded. A stretch of the beach near the Palace Pier, known as Brighton Central, lost the coveted title after the quality of water was reduced from excellent to good.”"
Yes and there were years it went up too.
But we are talking aboutnpublic vs private ownership of the works.
So where are the reports pre privatisation? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morely, you know how you always accuse people of not reading, even when you provide links! Guess what? You didn’t read the BMJ article I linked to above. That is really hypocritical of you!
To make it easy here are some extracts...
1. Having initially starved England and Wales’ regional state owned water and sewerage utilities of much needed public investment to upgrade the infrastructure, her [Thatcher] government privatised these in 1989.
2. For the previous century, water had been treated not as a commodity but as a prerequisite for public health. This is, after all, the country in which John Snow traced the origins of a deadly cholera outbreak in 1850s London to a single water pump in Soho by using ground breaking research that linked the disease to unsanitary water. Only a few decades later, self-made businessman turned politician Joseph Chamberlain argued in relation to control over water and sewerage that, “It is difficult, if not impossible, to combine the citizens’ rights and interests and the private enterprise’s interests, because the private enterprise aims at its natural and justified objective, the biggest possible profit.”
3. When Thatcher transferred ownership of the 10 public water utilities to the private sector, she wrote off their existing debts and threw in some seed money as well. Over the ensuing three decades, the experiment has worked well for investors, but has been disastrous for consumers and the environment.
And as for efficiency...
4. Most water companies are now owned by private equity investors who have used financial engineering to boost shareholder returns via complex corporate structures that often involve tax havens.
5. The companies have borrowed heavily—it is reported that current debt levels are in the order of £56bn for the nine companies in England. Interest payments (£1.3bn in 2019) are passed on to consumers.
6. Meanwhile, £72bn in dividends have been paid to shareholders of parent companies since privatisation. This reportedly amounts to nearly half the sum those companies spent on maintaining and improving the country’s pipes and treatment plants between 1991 and 2019.
7. The companies pay little tax and the remuneration of the bosses of English firms has raised eyebrows—amounting to £58m in pay and benefits over the past five years.
8. Although some investment has gone into maintaining infrastructure, no new water reservoirs have been built in England during the privatised era. It is reported that some land held by the companies has instead been used for house building, and only one new reservoir is under construction—it is planned to be in operation by 2029.
9. Underinvestment in infrastructure comes at a cost. In 2020 it was reported that more than three billion litres, a fifth of the volume used, were lost to leakage every day, and the figure has not improved over the previous 20 years.
10. Investment in sewerage has declined such that only 14% of English rivers meet good ecological status, raising major concerns about public health.
11. In 2021, the environmental performance of England’s nine water and sewerage companies was the worst for years, leading the Environmental Agency to call for prison sentences for chief executives of companies responsible for serious incidents.
"
Let's start with point 10.
Investment in sewerage has declined. Do we have the numbers for this please? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"I'd have been happy with the. Not investing. But I think we all k now where the water quality and service would have gone over the last 30 years.
Down the drain.
You can’t possibly know that. Too many variables. Are you happy with the amount of shit in our waterways? Loss of blue flag beaches? That all ok? Do you think the water companies have invested enough? What about if they had invested £30bn more and paid half the amount of dividends?
Jave you got the uk total pf blue flag beaches pre 1989 please and we can do a comparison.
Have you got the over flow comparisons pre 1989 please. And we can do tbe comparison.
I think the water companies have invested enough to see a marked change atleast in leals vs public ownership.
I am busy so replies will be sporadic.
The number of Blue Flag beaches and tryinv to make a comparison is a fatuous point. The scheme only launched in the late 80s and by its very nature is progressive so each year more beaches should be added to the scheme as environmental recognition has increased. The issue is losing status. That is criminal.
You said there was a loss of blue flag beaches?
“Brighton beach has lost its Blue Flag status after its water quality was downgraded. A stretch of the beach near the Palace Pier, known as Brighton Central, lost the coveted title after the quality of water was reduced from excellent to good.”
Yes and there were years it went up too.
But we are talking aboutnpublic vs private ownership of the works.
So where are the reports pre privatisation? "
You know what fatuous means right? Because you are doing it again. Environmental knowledge and activity is far more prevalent now than 40yrs ago. Pointless argument! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'd have been happy with the. Not investing. But I think we all k now where the water quality and service would have gone over the last 30 years.
Down the drain.
You can’t possibly know that. Too many variables. Are you happy with the amount of shit in our waterways? Loss of blue flag beaches? That all ok? Do you think the water companies have invested enough? What about if they had invested £30bn more and paid half the amount of dividends?
Jave you got the uk total pf blue flag beaches pre 1989 please and we can do a comparison.
Have you got the over flow comparisons pre 1989 please. And we can do tbe comparison.
I think the water companies have invested enough to see a marked change atleast in leals vs public ownership.
I am busy so replies will be sporadic.
The number of Blue Flag beaches and tryinv to make a comparison is a fatuous point. The scheme only launched in the late 80s and by its very nature is progressive so each year more beaches should be added to the scheme as environmental recognition has increased. The issue is losing status. That is criminal.
You said there was a loss of blue flag beaches?
“Brighton beach has lost its Blue Flag status after its water quality was downgraded. A stretch of the beach near the Palace Pier, known as Brighton Central, lost the coveted title after the quality of water was reduced from excellent to good.”
Yes and there were years it went up too.
But we are talking aboutnpublic vs private ownership of the works.
So where are the reports pre privatisation?
You know what fatuous means right? Because you are doing it again. Environmental knowledge and activity is far more prevalent now than 40yrs ago. Pointless argument! "
You keep saying things then when asked to backup claims with numbers and data. Saying " we don't have that data"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"The article(bmj blog) you are quoting jas said investment has declined.
Wheres the evidence."
I don’t recall ever applying for the job of being your personal researcher! Do your research Morley. Actually read things like you tell everyone else.
I tend to put some faith in articles published by the British Medical Journal. I’d say they have proper credibility. They also provide footnotes and links the data sources inc in that particular case gov.uk |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The article(bmj blog) you are quoting jas said investment has declined.
Wheres the evidence.
I don’t recall ever applying for the job of being your personal researcher! Do your research Morley. Actually read things like you tell everyone else.
I tend to put some faith in articles published by the British Medical Journal. I’d say they have proper credibility. They also provide footnotes and links the data sources inc in that particular case gov.uk"
OK so you quote blogs that don't prove what they claim.
Cheers
Any one can post on the bmj blog. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldn OP Couple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"So you post blogs you don't read fully and don't check the source material on.
Not a good look "
This is just plain embarrassing now Morley. You are doing precisely what you constantly accuse others of doing!
Dig deeper. There are 19 footnotes for that article and they have footnotes and links themselves.
Also BMJ apply editorial control, they don’t just publish any old thing...
“Once you have written a BMJ Opinion article then please submit it to blogs@bmj.com. We will then accept or reject it, edit it, and upload it online.”
There’s more to their editorial policies but that’ll do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So you post blogs you don't read fully and don't check the source material on.
Not a good look
This is just plain embarrassing now Morley. You are doing precisely what you constantly accuse others of doing!
Dig deeper. There are 19 footnotes for that article and they have footnotes and links themselves.
Also BMJ apply editorial control, they don’t just publish any old thing...
“Once you have written a BMJ Opinion article then please submit it to blogs@bmj.com. We will then accept or reject it, edit it, and upload it online.”
There’s more to their editorial policies but that’ll do."
I am picking one of them.
The one linked aa the source to the claim.
It doesn't say what the source says.
Would you like me to post it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So you post blogs you don't read fully and don't check the source material on.
Not a good look
This is just plain embarrassing now Morley. You are doing precisely what you constantly accuse others of doing!
Dig deeper. There are 19 footnotes for that article and they have footnotes and links themselves.
Also BMJ apply editorial control, they don’t just publish any old thing...
“Once you have written a BMJ Opinion article then please submit it to blogs@bmj.com. We will then accept or reject it, edit it, and upload it online.”
There’s more to their editorial policies but that’ll do."
Exactly it is a blog. This isnt a peer review and it's not a bmj endorsement.
They can accept and reject what they like. But it doesn't mean it's been reviewed with care.
As evidenced by the citation I am pointing at.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
