Topic: Never mind 'Stop the Boats' - STOP THE TORIES

[Sangria]

Yep, fuck swimming in that and we should be able to swim in our rivers for all but the worst of situations.

c*nts have been taking the piss for years.

You mean they've been pouring the piss.

[west_london_red]

Biggest no brainer of all time.  It pays for itself and it's popular with pretty much every demographic, even Tory voters and Brexiters.  It's rare that something makes practical, economic and political sense all at the same time.

Mad that none of the parties seem to want to touch it.

To buy them out will cost a lot of money so the question is where will it come from, but as I said before if Thames Water goes under then I can see the others following and as they go under they should be nationalised, no compensation for shareholders and none for it creditors. If you or I invest in anything there is always a warning that you may lose some or all of your capital and if you do the state doesn’t ride to your rescue, no reason why the people involved in Thames Water should be treated any different.

[thaddeus]

I don't think the government of any colour would let it get to the stage of bankruptcy.  Too many vested interests and they'll suddenly realise that water is an essential commodity so the water companies must be propped up at any cost for eternity.

Has any other country in the world privatised its entire water infrastructure?

[west_london_red]

I don't think the government of any colour would let it get to the stage of bankruptcy.  Too many vested interests and they'll suddenly realise that water is an essential commodity so the water companies must be propped up at any cost for eternity.

Has any other country in the world privatised its entire water infrastructure?

A Tory government might step in to keep Thames Water afloat (pardon the pun), but from a Labour point of view is it a bad idea to let it hit the wall? They can very easily pin the whole blame on the Tories, not just Thatcher for the privatisation but the last 14 years of them that’s allowed this to happen under their watch. It’s a political goal asking to be scored I’d say.

[A-Bomb]

A Tory government might step in to keep Thames Water afloat (pardon the pun), but from a Labour point of view is it a bad idea to let it hit the wall? They can very easily pin the whole blame on the Tories, not just Thatcher for the privatisation but the last 14 years of them that’s allowed this to happen under their watch. It’s a political goal asking to be scored I’d say.

100% and bring it back under public ownership.....show the model can work and the force compulsory purchase orders for the remainder of them (unless they too hit the wall before that happens)

Water is not a commerce, it's a necessity.

[filopastry]

A Tory government might step in to keep Thames Water afloat (pardon the pun), but from a Labour point of view is it a bad idea to let it hit the wall? They can very easily pin the whole blame on the Tories, not just Thatcher for the privatisation but the last 14 years of them that’s allowed this to happen under their watch. It’s a political goal asking to be scored I’d say.

I would guess the bigger issue is who is sitting on the other side of the debt

[oldfordie]

Water privatisation has been the biggest disaster of them all.  Why would you want to privatise your critical infrastructure?  It's nuts!

The case for renationalisation across the board, has never been stronger.

Thatcher told us the answer to that question, "Privatisation will bring competition, competition will bring down prices."
Yes it's a load of boll.... I thought it was a load of boll at the time as well, nothing has changed my mind since. problem was the left made the wrong argument to fight privatisation, they actually made it easier for the Torys arguing Clause 4. Ideology argument instead of the argument being made today. 

IMO One of the main reasons the Torys wanted privatisation is to absolve themselves from any responsibility for keeping these services running efficiently. the cost of running these services efficiently and the prices they charge etc.
Any problems with Electricity. Gas or water then blame those companies not the government.
The same applies today but we are in a worse position, the Water companies never had any debt when they were privatises, they are in massive debt now, investment is going to cost a fortune so Nationalisation will cost a lot of money, it will mean higher prices, am not saying it still shouldn't happen but Labour will face serious scrutiny on many questions.
Labour  are going to inherit a sh,.. run down country, it's going to cost £100s of billions to fix, get used to it.

[Red-Soldier]

I don't think the government of any colour would let it get to the stage of bankruptcy.  Too many vested interests and they'll suddenly realise that water is an essential commodity so the water companies must be propped up at any cost for eternity.

Has any other country in the world privatised its entire water infrastructure?

No. 

[Lusty]

To buy them out will cost a lot of money so the question is where will it come from, but as I said before if Thames Water goes under then I can see the others following and as they go under they should be nationalised, no compensation for shareholders and none for it creditors. If you or I invest in anything there is always a warning that you may lose some or all of your capital and if you do the state doesn’t ride to your rescue, no reason why the people involved in Thames Water should be treated any different.

Well the simple answer is that it would require borrowing.  But borrowing to invest in something so beneficial that pays for itself in a few years shouldn't really be controversial.  And in this case I don't think it really is, it's the one thing where pretty much everyone supports nationalisation.

[killer-heels]

I don't think the government of any colour would let it get to the stage of bankruptcy.  Too many vested interests and they'll suddenly realise that water is an essential commodity so the water companies must be propped up at any cost for eternity.

Has any other country in the world privatised its entire water infrastructure?

We are the only country in the world with a fully privatised water network.

[oldfordie]

Well the simple answer is that it would require borrowing. But borrowing to invest in something so beneficial that pays for itself in a few years shouldn't really be controversial. And in this case I don't think it really is, it's the one thing where pretty much everyone supports nationalisation.

Are you sure about that, we not only have to borrow to compensate the share holders, we also have to borrow billions in new investment, the investment will mean we will have clean water and no pollution, I don't see any profits being made in a few years.

[Lusty]

Are you sure about that, we not only have to borrow to compensate the share holders, we also have to borrow billions in new investment, the investment will mean we will have clean water and no pollution, I don't see any profits being made in a few years.

It's hard to find accurate figures on what it would cost because of the politics involved, but these companies have been paying out £2bn a year on average in dividends since privatisation.  Throw in savings in executive pay, cheaper public sector borrowing etc. and the money is all there.

The other approach I like is giving OFWAT the power to take shares instead of issuing fines, and doing it over time.

[Red-Soldier]

It's hard to find accurate figures on what it would cost because of the politics involved, but these companies have been paying out £2bn a year on average in dividends since privatisation.  Throw in savings in executive pay, cheaper public sector borrowing etc. and the money is all there.

The other approach I like is giving OFWAT the power to take shares instead of issuing fines, and doing it over time.

They are too close to the water companies, that's one of the big issues.  Many people work for both, and socialise together, etc.

The regulators need to be disbanded or reformed, too.

Renationalisation would pay for itself, I agree.  People have been brain washed into thinking it costs too much, for the past 40 years.

[killer-heels]

The fact that its happening to Thames water and South west is at risk is absolutely ideal. Thames Water is massive and a 40% hike in bills will really ramp up the political pressure.

[killer-heels]

Are you sure about that, we not only have to borrow to compensate the share holders, we also have to borrow billions in new investment, the investment will mean we will have clean water and no pollution, I don't see any profits being made in a few years.

If they collapse and go to the wall is the best outcome. If its still in state ownership by the time Labour get in charge then i expect them to keep it nationalised.

[Red-Soldier]

If they collapse and go to the wall is the best outcome. If its still in state ownership by the time Labour get in charge then i expect them to keep it nationalised.

Thames is by far the largest of the water companies, if they go, hopefully, others will follow.

[oldfordie]

It's hard to find accurate figures on what it would cost because of the politics involved, but these companies have been paying out £2bn a year on average in dividends since privatisation.  Throw in savings in executive pay, cheaper public sector borrowing etc. and the money is all there.

The other approach I like is giving OFWAT the power to take shares instead of issuing fines, and doing it over time.

Yeah, nobody disputes this but you were saying the government will be able to nationalise the water companies and update the water system and it will all be paid for by the profits in a few years, that doesn't sound correct to me.
It will take far more than a few yrs profits to Nationalise and update the whole water system.
If updating our water system was the only problem Labour had to sort out then it wouldn't be that big of a problem. the problem is everything's been run down to the bone, our railways need a fortune in investment. the NHS, energy companies.
I find it annoying to be honest. the people who helped create this mess are going to be the biggest critics of Labour for not fixing it in a few yrs, this is the price of letting idiots take control for a few yrs.

I would be a bit more aggressive punishing the people who are responsible for running our water companies.
If I took a drum of contaminated liquid and dumped it into the sea or local river etc I would probably be sent to prison if the pollution became serious, the water company bosses did far worse than this, they ran pipes into the sea so they could dump toxic liquid continually over years. once is a emergency, doing it continually over years is a choice. ive heard the excuses but they just tell us the system wasn't fit to cope, it was the bosses responsibility to fix it.
The water companies chose to tuck the profits into the share holders and bosses back pockets over many years, they basically run down the whole water system over many years so they could tuck the profits into their back pockets.

[filopastry]

Its a huge regulatory failure from Ofwat as, a lot of our regulators seem completely toothless

[Robinred]

It's hard to find accurate figures on what it would cost because of the politics involved, but these companies have been paying out £2bn a year on average in dividends since privatisation.  Throw in savings in executive pay, cheaper public sector borrowing etc. and the money is all there.

The other approach I like is giving OFWAT the power to take shares instead of issuing fines, and doing it over time.

Anything beginning “OF…” needs binning/totally re-forming should Labour win the election.

It’s clear as crystal that not one of the watchdogs has the teeth, or the necessary impartiality needed to police privatised utilities.

Thatcher’s obsession with Freedman’s “free the markets and competition will do the rest” ideology has done immeasurable damage. Some basic human needs are too important for profit to be a primary concern - unfettered, poorly regulated capitalism is a scourge.

[west_london_red]

I would guess the bigger issue is who is sitting on the other side of the debt

Again, thats the same for everyone else. When banks and institutes lend money they charge interest as a reward for the risk they are taking in lending the money in the knowledge that it might not be paid back. This time the risk might materialise.

[Red-Soldier]

Its a huge regulatory failure from Ofwat as, a lot of our regulators seem completely toothless

They are toothless by design.  And when they do have the regulations and law behind them, they do not enforce them.  The system is way too cosy!

[Dr. Beaker]

It was always bollocks this competition shit. Was I supposed to get the 0645 from Oban to Glasgow because it was cheaper than the Liverpool to Nottingham (please don't fact check, I'm just making a point). As for water, what exactly is the competition? I've tried Whisky but it's very expensive especially when doing your washing. Labour should somehow take it all back, you know, take control, but you know what happens next when the tories get back in, after the public has paid for all the upgrades.

Pissed off, of Wimbledon

[Jiminy Cricket]

It was always bollocks this competition shit. Was I supposed to get the 0645 from Oban to Glasgow because it was cheaper than the Liverpool to Nottingham (please don't fact check, I'm just making a point). As for water, what exactly is the competition? I've tried Whisky but it's very expensive especially when doing your washing. Labour should somehow take it all back, you know, take control, but you know what happens next when the tories get back in, after the public has paid for all the upgrades.

Pissed off, of Wimbledon

FTFY

[Red Beret]

They are toothless by design.  And when they do have the regulations and law behind them, they do not enforce them.  The system is way too cosy!

Which is why an "independent" regulator for the Premier League is equally pointless.

[thejbs]

The numbers involved are absolutely scandalous/cruminal. More than £7bn in dividends taken out using loans. In some years, the dividends were many times actual turnover. If Joe Public did that, they’d be accused of fraud.

[west_london_red]

Its a huge regulatory failure from Ofwat as, a lot of our regulators seem completely toothless

It’s not that they are toothless, they have teeth from what I have read it’s just their willingness (or lack of willingness) to actually bite and not keeping their eye on what the water companies are doing.

[Lusty]

Yeah, nobody disputes this but you were saying the government will be able to nationalise the water companies and update the water system and it will all be paid for by the profits in a few years, that doesn't sound correct to me.
It will take far more than a few yrs profits to Nationalise and update the whole water system.
If updating our water system was the only problem Labour had to sort out then it wouldn't be that big of a problem. the problem is everything's been run down to the bone, our railways need a fortune in investment. the NHS, energy companies.
I find it annoying to be honest. the people who helped create this mess are going to be the biggest critics of Labour for not fixing it in a few yrs, this is the price of letting idiots take control for a few yrs.

I would be a bit more aggressive punishing the people who are responsible for running our water companies.
If I took a drum of contaminated liquid and dumped it into the sea or local river etc I would probably be sent to prison if the pollution became serious, the water company bosses did far worse than this, they ran pipes into the sea so they could dump toxic liquid continually over years. once is a emergency, doing it continually over years is a choice. ive heard the excuses but they just tell us the system wasn't fit to cope, it was the bosses responsibility to fix it.
The water companies chose to tuck the profits into the share holders and bosses back pockets over many years, they basically run down the whole water system over many years so they could tuck the profits into their back pockets.

Well it depends what you think it will cost to renationalise, but the low end estimate is around £15bn so it will not take a lot of time to pay itself back given the level of money currently being sucked out of the system.  You can find bigger numbers, but mainly those come from groups that are backed from the water companies themselves.  Ultimately it comes down to what the government want to pay, not what the shareholders want. 

Of course there's a lot of money that needs to be injected to fix the infrastructure, but if the current plan is to let private companies hike the bills 40% then I think they can find a more popular alternative.

As for whether the Labour party should prioritise it, I would think that there are fewer simpler wins for them right now.  It's popular from a political perspective and cost effective, so I don't buy the argument that letting the relevant minister crack on with it is somehow going to stop them fixing the NHS or whatever.

[west_london_red]

Well it depends what you think it will cost to renationalise, but the low end estimate is around £15bn so it will not take a lot of time to pay itself back given the level of money currently being sucked out of the system.  You can find bigger numbers, but mainly those come from groups that are backed from the water companies themselves.  Ultimately it comes down to what the government want to pay, not what the shareholders want. 

Of course there's a lot of money that needs to be injected to fix the infrastructure, but if the current plan is to let private companies hike the bills 40% then I think they can find a more popular alternative.

As for whether the Labour party should prioritise it, I would think that there are fewer simpler wins for them right now.  It's popular from a political perspective and cost effective, so I don't buy the argument that letting the relevant minister crack on with it is somehow going to stop them fixing the NHS or whatever.

Problem is when you buy them you take on their debts typically which for Thames Water alone is more then £15 billion. Let Thames Water just become bankrupt and they can be bought for a relative bargain although ideally it shouldn’t be anything, but you can’t put that in a manifesto.

[bigbonedrawky]

Kick the lobbyist / private donars out of politcs and these issues with the Water Industry wouldn't happen.

[oldfordie]

Well it depends what you think it will cost to renationalise, but the low end estimate is around £15bn so it will not take a lot of time to pay itself back given the level of money currently being sucked out of the system.  You can find bigger numbers, but mainly those come from groups that are backed from the water companies themselves.  Ultimately it comes down to what the government want to pay, not what the shareholders want. 

Of course there's a lot of money that needs to be injected to fix the infrastructure, but if the current plan is to let private companies hike the bills 40% then I think they can find a more popular alternative.

As for whether the Labour party should prioritise it, I would think that there are fewer simpler wins for them right now.  It's popular from a political perspective and cost effective, so I don't buy the argument that letting the relevant minister crack on with it is somehow going to stop them fixing the NHS or whatever.

Ive no idea how much it will cost to renationalise and update the whole system but it's not right to say it's a no brainer because it will pay for itself in a few years. people accept this sort of stuff as fact and tear into Labour.
We can't let the situation continue that's for sure.  I agree over this being the number 1 problem Labour needs to tackle, the public would probably support Nationalisation but the attention will switch elsewhere in no time, why aren't Labour sorting out the NHS, I could go on.
 I think it's very important the public acknowledges the position Labour will be in when they take power, a country run down to the bone, get angry at the people who helped bring this about rather than tearing into Labour for not sorting it all out straight away, it won't happen. every day or so we hear another mess Labour has to sort out, a mess people demand Labour sort out straight away.

[Lusty]

Ive no idea how much it will cost to renationalise and update the whole system but it's not right to say it's a no brainer because it will pay for itself in a few years. people accept this sort of stuff as fact and tear into Labour.
We can't let the situation continue that's for sure.  I agree over this being the number 1 problem Labour needs to tackle, the public would probably support Nationalisation but the attention will switch elsewhere in no time, why aren't Labour sorting out the NHS, I could go on.
 I think it's very important the public acknowledges the position Labour will be in when they take power, a country run down to the bone, get angry at the people who helped bring this about rather than tearing into Labour for not sorting it all out straight away, it won't happen. every day or so we hear another mess Labour has to sort out, a mess people demand Labour sort out straight away.

Most of the independent research I've seen is quoting around £15bn, and 6-7 years to pay itself back.  You can find figures of £90bn or even £200bn, but they come from the industry lobbyists.  I'm not specifically criticizing Labour, as far as I'm aware none of the major parties are planning to do it, but I am disappointed that they're missing an open goal here.

I also don't see how it will stop them from focussing on the NHS as I said.  There's a whole team of ministers with their own briefs to work on.

[Red Beret]

It's really an argument in semantics. I don't see how Thames Water can avoid being nationalised. How it gets paid for will just have to be figured out at some point.

But when you're borrowing money to pay dividends off the back of a company that is utterly failing to do its job, then frankly that should be criminal. Everyone running Thames Water should be up on charges.

This is not a problem that can be sorted out by the private sector, because the private sector isn't interested in solving it if there isn't money to be made from it.

[thaddeus]

We are the only country in the world with a fully privatised water network.

Doesn't it make you so proud?

World beating innovation.  35 years later and the rest of the world still hasn't caught up.  Rule Britannia.

[9 kemlyn road]

Doesn't it make you so proud?

World beating innovation.  35 years later and the rest of the world still hasn't caught up.  Rule Britannia.

It’s coming up to 45 years in may since thatcher came to power and began her destructive reign with her warped ideology.
Privatising every then nationalised industry and selling off everything to her mates in the city .in all that time since then can anyone tell me if any one of those privatised industries and services have proved to be a success and in the publics interest because to me every single one has been a disaster culminating in the shambles that Thames water is .
Labour really do have an open goal to nationalise them.the public want it ,they’ll surely have abig majority at the election to get it passed through parliament.
As has been said the cost to take control of Thames water would be huge but again ,as has been mentioned,let it go bankrupt then step in and take it over .must be the best option for all.
Even the tories had to basically nationalise LNER railways for a while a few years back went the company running it withdrew from the franchise and it ended up being in profit and efficient andproved popular with the public but of course they did what they always do and flogged it back off again .

[Red Beret]

I don't see why shareholders should be compensated anyway. And if they are, it should be a pittance. The company borrowed billions to pay them dividends that likely should not have been paid - they've had enough money already.

Railtrack was allowed to collapse and was renationalised as Network Rail. Don't think it was ever sold off again? Natwest was effectively nationalised during the banking crisis as well. Such actions are not without precedent.

[Wabaloolah]

Breaking news at the close of the beeb lunchtime news is that the HMRC helpdesk for ‘self assessment’ will now close for six months every year.  Obviously primarily impacts self employed and/or those earning high salaries (think it’s £150k Pa).   I’d guess as a result of lack of staff resources at HMRC.

not just high earners and self employed, I've had to fill one in for years due to claiming expenses for my job. Also if you claim child benefit and earn more than £50k you have to fill one in

[Wabaloolah]

Redwood and IDS are certs to go. a few Tory MPs like Andrea Jenkins also know they are going to be given the boot as well, she's desperate. on twitter all the time posting all sorts of shite, going to be a brilliant night watching them awhen the results are called.
Maybe we should have a little comp in the days leading up to the election. pick the Torys who will loose their seats. not the Torys with a minority, that's too easy.
Pick 5 or 10 Tory MPs with a majority of over 10.000 who are shown the door.

Mogg will be my Portillo moment, watching that odeious stuck up nanny's boy get the boot will be pure joy

[Wabaloolah]

To buy them out will cost a lot of money so the question is where will it come from, but as I said before if Thames Water goes under then I can see the others following and as they go under they should be nationalised, no compensation for shareholders and none for it creditors. If you or I invest in anything there is always a warning that you may lose some or all of your capital and if you do the state doesn’t ride to your rescue, no reason why the people involved in Thames Water should be treated any different.

make it as difficult as possible for them to.contunue operating, put a law in place that puts a low cap on bills that consumers pay a low amount and force them to declare bankruptcy and nationalise it by stealth.

Do the same for the railways and energy, they've been taking the piss for too long with high prices but little to no investment.

[Wabaloolah]

Wasn't it MacMillan who made that speech to the House of Lords criticising Thatcher's privatisation policy as selling the family silver?

40 years later and there's literally fuck all left to sell

[PaulF]

I'm certainly not going to defend privatising water as I think I pointed out my view on the absurdity a few months ago. But we can't necessarily say nationalised industry is good either. The NHS and education are in dire need of investment and they are government run.

I dont think. I really see the benefit of privatising anything where there really can't be competition, but if you are going to do it, you need a much tougher regulator. Possibly including a borrowing cap so the threat of renationilastion is always there.