|
|
Post by patman post on Mar 30, 2024 19:14:03 GMT
Weren’t water and sewage charges separate at on time? I vaguely remember my Dad complaining about sewage charges being moved from where they were included — was that the old rates…?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 30, 2024 19:18:40 GMT
Nope.
I can remember when water was rationed and we had standpipes in the streets, because the Waterboard had not dug the reservoirs deep enough or some such. It did not worry the civil servants in charge. They just carried on doing the same old crappy job as before.
What we need is more privatisation and more boards, the same as we have with the power companies. I have just told Shell Energy to fuck off because, well, sod it, I felt like it. I doubt that the next lot will be any better, but it is unlikely that it will be any worse and I could never do that with the Metropolitan Waterboard of not overly fond memory
Borchy, the water industry was privatised in 1989. At that time plans for Carsington reservoir were advanced and the project was completed in 1991. That was the last reservoir built in England. In spite of hugely increased demand, the privatised water industry over the past 35 years have not built one single reservoir. But I'm willing to bet that foreign shareholders are more than happy with their dividends. |
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Mar 30, 2024 19:33:16 GMT
Weren’t water and sewage charges separate at on time? I vaguely remember my Dad complaining about sewage charges being moved from where they were included — was that the old rates…? They might have been.
The bottom line is that the consumer didn't get any choice in their supplier. We get that now with the power companies, not so with the waterboards
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Mar 30, 2024 19:41:26 GMT
Weren’t water and sewage charges separate at on time? I vaguely remember my Dad complaining about sewage charges being moved from where they were included — was that the old rates…? They might have been.
The bottom line is that the consumer didn't get any choice in their supplier. We get that now with the power companies, not so with the waterboards
Isn’t the Almighty the primary supplier? The water companies are no more than imams, priests and rabbis just delivering stuff someone’s made a money spinner… |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Mar 30, 2024 19:44:15 GMT
I personally don't think these should have been sold yet if one is renationalised won't that create noise for others too and that will then increase union membership with self serving union reps.
I would say water companies shareholders have allegedly got high yields surely now is the time to reduce the yields to invest in the infrastructure yet the company has big debts so it is going to be interesting to see how this transpires. A lot of investors might sell and then mark to market practise could make it bankrupt very quickly.
If they go bankrupt with debts it will probably be a write off and that will hit markets and pension funds hard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 30, 2024 20:14:35 GMT
I personally don't think these should have been sold yet if one is renationalised won't that create noise for others too and that will then increase union membership with self serving union reps. I would say water companies shareholders have allegedly got high yields surely now is the time to reduce the yields to invest in the infrastructure yet the company has big debts so it is going to be interesting to see how this transpires. A lot of investors might sell and then mark to market practise could make it bankrupt very quickly. If they go bankrupt with debts it will probably be a write off and that will hit markets and pension funds hard. Bancroft, you should read what Richard Murphy has to say, it's quite interesting. See OP. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Mar 30, 2024 20:33:45 GMT
I personally don't think these should have been sold yet if one is renationalised won't that create noise for others too and that will then increase union membership with self serving union reps. I would say water companies shareholders have allegedly got high yields surely now is the time to reduce the yields to invest in the infrastructure yet the company has big debts so it is going to be interesting to see how this transpires. A lot of investors might sell and then mark to market practise could make it bankrupt very quickly. If they go bankrupt with debts it will probably be a write off and that will hit markets and pension funds hard. Bancroft, you should read what Richard Murphy has to say, it's quite interesting. See OP. He is an accountant about 10 years ago there were attacks on power stations globally in the West. There was no public statement to say how it was stopped yet it was. This taking utilities to the private sector has benefited lots of investors we need to understand who these are before rushing it too quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 30, 2024 20:53:05 GMT
Bancroft, you should read what Richard Murphy has to say, it's quite interesting. See OP. He is an accountant about 10 years ago there were attacks on power stations globally in the West. There was no public statement to say how it was stopped yet it was. This taking utilities to the private sector has benefited lots of investors we need to understand who these are before rushing it too quickly. He is an accountant with 40 years experience and a professor at the university of Sheffield school of management. To write him off as just another accountant is, lets be generous and say, unfortunate. The attacks on power stations, could you elaborate? And yes there is no doubt about it that the private sector and private investors have benefited greatly from the privatisation of the water industry. Sadly as far as the consumer is concerned, privatisation has bought no benefits whatsoever... unless you consider higher bills, increased pollution and poor service as a benefit? No, of course you dont. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 30, 2024 22:27:35 GMT
It seems to me there are two immediate benefits of state ownership, and I'm only talking about the water industry. Firstly, privatised industries work in the interests of shareholders not customers or consumers which is not particularly good for the consumer. Secondly, water is a strategic asset, people need water to survive. On that basis alone I would have thought it was in the best interests of the government to own it's own water. People who are pro privatisation (Of the water industry) always claim that privatisation brings investment and reduces pollution. Well all I can say to that is, the water industry in England after 30 years of privatisation is a towering advert for nationalisation. As far as the water industry is concerned, privatisation has failed.So why are the Nationalised parts of the industry in the UK performing the worst? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 30, 2024 22:30:17 GMT
I was rather looking at what would improve for me the consumer if the taxpayer is going to spend vast sums on nationalisation. I already said in bold above add to that security of our essential utilities,should add to that the energy sector. I'm not sure that is much of an argument as they cannot shut it down and transfer it overseas. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 30, 2024 22:32:12 GMT
Weren’t water and sewage charges separate at on time? I vaguely remember my Dad complaining about sewage charges being moved from where they were included — was that the old rates…? One place I lived we had one company supplying water and another taking care of the sewage - this was pre-privatisation.. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 30, 2024 22:34:02 GMT
I personally don't think these should have been sold yet if one is renationalised won't that create noise for others too and that will then increase union membership with self serving union reps. I would say water companies shareholders have allegedly got high yields surely now is the time to reduce the yields to invest in the infrastructure yet the company has big debts so it is going to be interesting to see how this transpires. A lot of investors might sell and then mark to market practise could make it bankrupt very quickly. If they go bankrupt with debts it will probably be a write off and that will hit markets and pension funds hard. Bancroft, you should read what Richard Murphy has to say, it's quite interesting. See OP. Richard Murphy is an imbecile whose economic ideas were even too daft for the SNP.. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 31, 2024 10:00:14 GMT
I already said in bold above add to that security of our essential utilities,should add to that the energy sector. I'm not sure that is much of an argument as they cannot shut it down and transfer it overseas. They can though as with Thames water take their bat and ball in the form of investment or lack thereof after filling their pockets with dividends ill gotten imo and that’s not just me saying that about the dividends but people like Rees Mogg. Essential utilities such as water should never be in the hands of the private sector much less foreign which is why other countries don’t do it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 31, 2024 10:38:14 GMT
The reason that Thames has put £500 million of investment on hold is that OFWAT are refusing to allow them to raise prices. The private sector are not going to invest if there is no return.
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Mar 31, 2024 10:38:39 GMT
He is an accountant about 10 years ago there were attacks on power stations globally in the West. There was no public statement to say how it was stopped yet it was. This taking utilities to the private sector has benefited lots of investors we need to understand who these are before rushing it too quickly. He is an accountant with 40 years experience and a professor at the university of Sheffield school of management. To write him off as just another accountant is, lets be generous and say, unfortunate. The attacks on power stations, could you elaborate? And yes there is no doubt about it that the private sector and private investors have benefited greatly from the privatisation of the water industry. Sadly as far as the consumer is concerned, privatisation has bought no benefits whatsoever... unless you consider higher bills, increased pollution and poor service as a benefit? No, of course you dont. I don't like it one bit yet lets make it clear unless A or B gets fixed within 18 months they lose their license. |
|
