Thames water, asset stripped & going down the pan?

[Mr Gus]

Meaning massive price rises foisted on us all (collectively) & a glittering turd of absorbing thames waters debt of incompetence!?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ge-climate

Like we couldn't see that happening, investors want their pound of flesh profit regardless..

How much do they want to be given in order to continue behaving badly?

[dan_b]

What has the regulator been doing for the last decade?

[AE-NMidlands]

What has the regulator been doing for the last decade?

not a lot... it's what they are for!

[Mr Gus]

massive debt burden.. per londoner / thames customer costs ..anyone?

14 bill div by 15mill customers

£966 per customer

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... r-collapse

[AE-NMidlands]

in that Guardian article:

Darren Jones, the Labour MP who chairs the parliamentary business and trade committee, said Ofwat had a case to answer over the problems in the industry, and that he was “increasingly sick” of seeing the same failings.
“We know that companies that are too important to fail must be regulated differently to other companies,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “For too many years, decades even, we’ve allowed these companies to be operated with high-risk stakes, with high levels of debt, with wealth being extracted from the companies, with investment not being high enough.”

He added: “And then, once again, we’re in a situation where we’re being told that customers, taxpayers are going to have to pick up the bill for a failure of good corporate behaviour at these companies, and by the sounds of it poor regulation.
“These companies have been allowed to not invest for the future, even though we know in many ways what we needed them to do for the future, and the regulators have allowed them to get away with it.”

Even if they had been "investing for the future" they might still have got away with syphoning money to shareholders by taking on loads of debt... It seems that the regulator doesn't have a view on their financial structure, just whether they are delivering water or not.

[Mr Gus]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -163312392

Love this comment...
https://discussion.theguardian.com/comm ... /163312392

"Privatisation of water was going to lead to wonderful things they said .We may pay more initially ,but these privatised companies would invest heavily in infrastructure ,fix leaks and our bills would fall.

They invested in themselves and pumped crap into our rivers and seas ,whilst laughing all the way to the bank.

Same with the privatised railways ,they would invest and our train fares would eventually fall.

I have a letter somewhere from one of the transport ministers after a few years of privatisation saying how wonderful our railway system would become ,with eventually cheaper travel and a wonderful integrated public transport system.
Yes privatisation ,just like Brexit ,worked out really well"

(i'd love for that commenter to go back to that mp & get an update on how the matter turned out)

[AE-NMidlands]

Seems like the regulator might be waking up: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -companies has

The sound of doors creaking closed long after the horses had bolted was hard to ignore when the regulator Ofwat this year unveiled new powers to stop water companies paying dividends if it would harm their financial resilience.

That came on the heels of another belated bout of regulatory bluster when the Environment Agency said water bosses should be jailed after overseeing the worst levels of pollution in years.

As Thames Water, the biggest of the privatised water and sewerage companies, teeters on the brink of collapse, the tardy flexing of these regulatory muscles will be the focus of much criticism.

For decades, water firms, which were handed a monopoly with no debts at privatisation in 1989, have been loading up debt to pay dividends, while failing to adequately invest in the infrastructure to fulfil their legal duty: to provide clean water to customers and treat their sewage.

[spread-tee]

Interesting discussion of the scale of this rip-off,

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/202 ... insolvent/

privatisation was always a rip-off but well fell for Thatchers "tell sid" bollocks and even voted for it, some still believe it

It has been an outstanding success at driving the trickle up economy, we were fleeced of billions in assets and cash for basically fuck all. I hear very few politicians offering to change it and we are about to get fleeced again, talk is of taking it back into public ownership temporarily, great that means the debt is public but the profit is private.

Where is Guy Fawkes when you need him.

[Mr Gus]

The "Tell Sid" was great advertising agency creativiity that just does not exist these days.. as for the rest, (privatisation) NOT GREAT

[Moxi]

Which is why I say the 5 year government term with no performance penalties on MP's and prime ministers remuneration packages needs to be changed. Why should they think they can do whatever they want and walk away without making recompense for their mal practice?

There is no reasonable means to hold these people to account and it needs to change - reward good governance and penalise poor governance and make the penalties personal - hit them in the pocket and if its criminal wrong doing - into the penal system with them!

Moxi