|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 18, 2024 19:58:22 GMT
As you may know, Thames Water in spite of paying eye watering executive salaries, bonuses and share dividends, is about £15 billion in the red and a few months away from going bust. Starmer is set to increase everyone's water bill in order to bail out Thames Water, which is owned by investors in China, Abu Dhabi, Canada and the Netherlands. Thames Water is effectively forcing customers to bail the company out by increasing bills, whilst shareholders retain ownership and profit. Thames is daring the government to refuse its demands knowing the government are unlikely to allow it to go bust. But why not an orderly bankruptcy? Prem Sikka is an Emeritus Professor of Accounting at the University of Essex and the University of Sheffield and a Labour member of the House of Lords, he says... "Water privatisation is a giant Ponzi scheme in which today’s shareholders extract returns by exploiting customers. The impending collapse of Thames Water is an opportunity to roll-back the era of vulture capitalism, and ensure that surpluses of utilities are ploughed back into the infrastructure rather than handed to shareholders."I absolutely agree with Prof Sikka. Starmer should allow Thames Water to go bust. henrytapper.com/2024/04/03/let-thames-water-go-bust/ |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 18, 2024 21:03:42 GMT
An incredibly dumb idea.
UK insolvency rules mean that any company that goes into liquidation is then broken up and the assets sold to reimburse the debtors. In the case of Thames this means selling off the land, vehicles, machinery, computer system etc etc.
What should happen is that the customers should pay more to meet the costs of running the company. For example the average bill under Thames Water is £456 - the average bill in my region (Wessex) which is not in financial difficulty is £504.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 18, 2024 21:17:29 GMT
He's Labour, so why isn't he taking it back under state control?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 18, 2024 21:59:26 GMT
He's Labour, so why isn't he taking it back under state control? They can't afford it. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 18, 2024 22:00:52 GMT
They never can, hasn't stopped them in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 18, 2024 22:25:58 GMT
An incredibly dumb idea. UK insolvency rules mean that any company that goes into liquidation is then broken up and the assets sold to reimburse the debtors. In the case of Thames this means selling off the land, vehicles, machinery, computer system etc etc. What should happen is that the customers should pay more to meet the costs of running the company. For example the average bill under Thames Water is £456 - the average bill in my region (Wessex) which is not in financial difficulty is £504. Well... I tend to think you're wrong. I have no experience of insolvency law, but the chap I mentioned previously, Prem Sikka who is a Professor of Accounting says... ...Shares in Thames Water are almost worthless and major investors have significantly written-down the value of their investment. Upon bankruptcy, lenders may pick the carcass of Thames but many of its assets, such as underground pipes, sewage treatment plants and reservoirs have little or no alternative use value. Lenders will recover little from any fire-sale. The government will need to negotiate a suitable price to bring it into public ownership. The cost of acquiring water companies can be loaded on to the entity itself, as is the case with many takeovers (for example, Asda, Morrisons). In any case, the net cost of public ownership is zero as any debt issued to purchase Thames will be matched by assets in the government’s balance sheet. The government could invite people to buy bonds in water companies with the promise of a discount on bills, and thereby eliminate the cost of nationalising from its finances altogether.Sounds a better option that massively increasing consumer bills to save a company owned by foreign investors. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 19, 2024 6:38:59 GMT
'The government will need to negotiate a suitable price to bring it into public ownership'
Being the key point - if they want it they will have to pay for it.
..and then what?. At the end of the day you have the same company with the same issues but loaded with more debt that it has to repay. Chuck another £50 on bills and its job done, you don't need to mess around with the ownership.
At some point the customer will have to pay what it costs to deliver water. If that is more then so be it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 19, 2024 7:42:17 GMT
As you may know, Thames Water in spite of paying eye watering executive salaries, bonuses and share dividends, is about £15 billion in the red and a few months away from going bust. Starmer is set to increase everyone's water bill in order to bail out Thames Water, which is owned by investors in China, Abu Dhabi, Canada and the Netherlands. Thames Water is effectively forcing customers to bail the company out by increasing bills, whilst shareholders retain ownership and profit. Thames is daring the government to refuse its demands knowing the government are unlikely to allow it to go bust. But why not an orderly bankruptcy? Prem Sikka is an Emeritus Professor of Accounting at the University of Essex and the University of Sheffield and a Labour member of the House of Lords, he says... "Water privatisation is a giant Ponzi scheme in which today’s shareholders extract returns by exploiting customers. The impending collapse of Thames Water is an opportunity to roll-back the era of vulture capitalism, and ensure that surpluses of utilities are ploughed back into the infrastructure rather than handed to shareholders."I absolutely agree with Prof Sikka. Starmer should allow Thames Water to go bust. henrytapper.com/2024/04/03/let-thames-water-go-bust/Don't you have your own opinion on matters? You keep on posting opinions of media influencers. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Sept 19, 2024 8:20:14 GMT
'The government will need to negotiate a suitable price to bring it into public ownership'Being the key point - if they want it they will have to pay for it. ..and then what?. At the end of the day you have the same company with the same issues but loaded with more debt that it has to repay. Chuck another £50 on bills and its job done, you don't need to mess around with the ownership. At some point the customer will have to pay what it costs to deliver water. If that is more then so be it. I go with that on the condition there are no shareholder payments or bonuses for the directors until the company is running properly and that said directors are held accountable for environmental damage due to discharges into seas and rivers |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 19, 2024 14:27:32 GMT
'The government will need to negotiate a suitable price to bring it into public ownership'Being the key point - if they want it they will have to pay for it. ..and then what?. At the end of the day you have the same company with the same issues but loaded with more debt that it has to repay. Chuck another £50 on bills and its job done, you don't need to mess around with the ownership. At some point the customer will have to pay what it costs to deliver water. If that is more then so be it. I go with that on the condition there are no shareholder payments or bonuses for the directors until the company is running properly and that said directors are held accountable for environmental damage due to discharges into seas and rivers OK - if you nationalise it who are you going to hold to account for the sewage discharges then - the PM?. How would you sanction him?. Water companies have always pumped sewage into rivers - these days it better than its ever been but I doubt you would be able to eradicate it entirely - and if you could would it be financially worthwhile? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 20, 2024 10:42:13 GMT
As you may know, Thames Water in spite of paying eye watering executive salaries, bonuses and share dividends, is about £15 billion in the red and a few months away from going bust. Starmer is set to increase everyone's water bill in order to bail out Thames Water, which is owned by investors in China, Abu Dhabi, Canada and the Netherlands. Thames Water is effectively forcing customers to bail the company out by increasing bills, whilst shareholders retain ownership and profit. Thames is daring the government to refuse its demands knowing the government are unlikely to allow it to go bust. But why not an orderly bankruptcy? Prem Sikka is an Emeritus Professor of Accounting at the University of Essex and the University of Sheffield and a Labour member of the House of Lords, he says... "Water privatisation is a giant Ponzi scheme in which today’s shareholders extract returns by exploiting customers. The impending collapse of Thames Water is an opportunity to roll-back the era of vulture capitalism, and ensure that surpluses of utilities are ploughed back into the infrastructure rather than handed to shareholders."I absolutely agree with Prof Sikka. Starmer should allow Thames Water to go bust. henrytapper.com/2024/04/03/let-thames-water-go-bust/Don't you have your own opinion on matters? You keep on posting opinions of media influencers. I very much doubt that Lord Sikka, professor of accounting at Essex University, would consider himself to be a 'media influencer'. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 20, 2024 10:50:06 GMT
Don't you have your own opinion on matters? You keep on posting opinions of media influencers. I very much doubt that Lord Sikka, professor of accounting at Essex University, would consider himself to be a 'media influencer'. You would be surprised. I listen to a number of professors who are media influencers. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Sept 20, 2024 11:33:55 GMT
I go with that on the condition there are no shareholder payments or bonuses for the directors until the company is running properly and that said directors are held accountable for environmental damage due to discharges into seas and rivers OK - if you nationalise it who are you going to hold to account for the sewage discharges then - the PM?. How would you sanction him?. Water companies have always pumped sewage into rivers - these days it better than its ever been but I doubt you would be able to eradicate it entirely - and if you could would it be financially worthwhile? Of course if its nationalised the PM /MP's are held to account through the ballot box . They would soon make sure everything worked if their jobs depended on it |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 20, 2024 17:01:42 GMT
OK - if you nationalise it who are you going to hold to account for the sewage discharges then - the PM?. How would you sanction him?. Water companies have always pumped sewage into rivers - these days it better than its ever been but I doubt you would be able to eradicate it entirely - and if you could would it be financially worthwhile? Of course if its nationalised the PM /MP's are held to account through the ballot box . They would soon make sure everything worked if their jobs depended on it Hmmm.... I don't recall a single election prior to water privatisation where the performance of the Water Companies was ever an issue. The worst water pollution incident in UK history occurred in Cornwall in 1988 before privatisation - that incident was never mentioned in the subsequent election. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 20, 2024 17:07:19 GMT
Of course if its nationalised the PM /MP's are held to account through the ballot box . They would soon make sure everything worked if their jobs depended on it Hmmm.... I don't recall a single election prior to water privatisation where the performance of the Water Companies was ever an issue. The worst water pollution incident in UK history occurred in Cornwall in 1988 before privatisation - that incident was never mentioned in the subsequent election. 1988 Camelford water pollution incident......
|
|
