advertisement


Thames Water

The Tories now seem to be operating a scorched Earth policy. Leave the country in such a mess, and so difficult to unpick, that their successors will inevitably fail.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
The Tories now seem to be operating a scorched Earth policy. Leave the country in such a mess, and so difficult to unpick, that their successors will inevitably fail.
Click to expand...

The problem that you have is that the Labour Party is a MK11 version of the Tories. They are playing their intentions low key pre election but we all know that they are as Tory as the Tories.

No matter who wins the election, the same policies will continue.
 
Mick P said:
The problem that you have is that the Labour Party is a MK11 version of the Tories. They are playing their intentions low key pre election but we all know that they are as Tory as the Tories.

No matter who wins the election, the same policies will continue.
Click to expand...
Yes, but with different donors and politicians’ snouts in the trough. So set them up to fail, then resume in 5 years.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Yes, but with different donors and politicians’ snouts in the trough. So set them up to fail, then resume in 5 years.
Click to expand...
No need to state the bleeding obvious. Proportionality, the Libs were the most bent lot and made the other parties look somewhat sweet. Toryism is going to continue because it attracts votes and there are a lot of Tory voters about to swing to Labour because of their Tory attitudes.

Frankly it's case of similar to Blair, who cares who wins, it will be the same policies.
 
Mick P said:
The problem that you have is that the Labour Party is a MK11 version of the Tories. They are playing their intentions low key pre election but we all know that they are as Tory as the Tories.

No matter who wins the election, the same policies will continue.
Click to expand...
In this we are in total agreement
 
Yesterday, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee wrote to OFWAT. One part of its letter (here) said:

In the case of Thames Water, shareholders of the parent company have made it clear that future infrastructure funding is contingent on Ofwat taking a positive view of its proposed bill rises and taking a lighter touch on its regulatory enforcement measures.

We are concerned, therefore, that it may not be in your organisation’s interest to use the full extent of its powers given the impact that the failure of a major business would have on the stability of the sector and the public purse. Challenging dividend payments to Kemble Water, the parent company of Thames Water which itself generates no 3 income, has the potential to undermine its business and require Government action through a special administrative vehicle (SAV). Any forward programme must clearly set out how Ofwat will balance its need to regulate with protecting the financial viability of the water companies.
Click to expand...

The whole letter is an indictment of the entire model - how have we ended up with a system where the public regulator needs to adopt 'light tough' regulation, or none at all, in order to protect the financial viability of failing, often legally opaque, private water companies?
 
Like Ofcom and all the Ofs, Ofwat is a fig leaf and a f**kOf to the consumer. Other govt agencies to protect the consumer have been so underfunded they have neither the staff to investigate nor the cash to pursue rip off crooks via the courts.
 
Thames Water investors are reported to be demanding higher bills for consumers, reduced fines and a relaxation of the rules on paying out divis before they'll inject a further £3.25bn (LOL) of doomed cash into the basket case utility.

Good thing Labour committed to renationalising the water companies and putting an end to this farce!

A crucial first test of Ofwat’s stance will come within weeks when the regulator decides whether to fine Thames for paying a £37.5mn dividend to Kemble last October. Kemble, which was set up to raise finance for Thames Water, needs the dividends to service its debt but new rules introduced last year forbid water utilities with poor financial records from making payouts.
..
Ruling out the dividends could ultimately trigger an administration process by Kemble, which could have a domino effect on Thames Water as there would be increased uncertainty over the group’s ability to repay its debts, making further finance unaffordable or even unavailable.

Thames Water lobbies for higher bills, dividend payouts and lower fines

Water company seeks to avoid government bailout as officials make contingency plan for its failure dubbed Project Timber
www.ft.com www.ft.com
 
laughingboy said:
Yesterday, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee wrote to OFWAT. One part of its letter (here) said:



The whole letter is an indictment of the entire model - how have we ended up with a system where the public regulator needs to adopt 'light tough' regulation, or none at all, in order to protect the financial viability of failing, often legally opaque, private water companies?
Click to expand...
That letter from the Committee sounds like a classic threat/extortion letter: "send more money or this dog will die".
 
Thames Water shareholders refuse to inject more cash unless bills rise

but Ofwat thus far refuses to let the put prices up... no doubt pressure will be brought to bear so they can keep creaming dividends off a company that is essentially loss making and not adhering to its charter... oh and the shareholders include pension funds as well as wealth funds from China and Abu Dhabi... so London's water supply is partly controlled by foreign wealth funds... great idea :rolleyes: Hope they go bust and the shareholders get royally shafted!
 
tiggers said:
Thames Water shareholders refuse to inject more cash unless bills rise

but Ofwat thus far refuses to let the put prices up... no doubt pressure will be brought to bear so they can keep creaming dividends off a company that is essentially loss making and not adhering to its charter... oh and the shareholders include pension funds as well as wealth funds from China and Abu Dhabi... so London's water supply is partly controlled by foreign wealth funds... great idea :rolleyes: Hope they go bust and the shareholders get royally shafted!
Click to expand...
There was an interesting segment on Radio 4's Today programme this morning. It made the point that the previous shareholders, Macquarie, were largely to blame for the debt position of Thames Water. The implication of this point was one I found hard to stomach. It implied that the current shareholders should in some way be 'helped' by the regulator/bill payers.

This gets to the heart of one of the problems with the privatisation of essential public services/infrastructure: we don't, in the end, treat them like any other business. In any other business, the current shareholders would be regarded as having knowingly taken on the risks of the business when they bought the shares. When the business goes bust, they take the haircut. Why should the normal rules of capitalism not apply?
 
The FT story says shareholders have described Thames Water as "uninvestable" i.e. their gamble that they could buy into a basketcase utility and be assured of a bailout from public funds hasn't paid off.

The writing really is on the wall now.

Time for Ofwat to go too. It's not fit for purpose.
 
I know it will hurt pension investments, but the public shouldn't be propping up businesses like Thames Water. Obviously, the Tories don't want one of their privatisation main utility companies to fail, so they will do all they can to avoid that happening and it going on their record. It will be interesting to see what Labour do. These Privatised Water Companies have creamed off dividends and director bonuses during the last 30 years when there should have been more investment in infrastructure. Something like £70B has been paid out in dividends! Imagine if, as a state asset, that had been reinvested in the infrastructure: less leaks, better sewage treatment, cleaner rivers, seas etc. The public has awoken to this and the fact that successive tory and labour governments have not regulated them properly. Feargal Sharkey is a beacon of light on this. The next labour Government should ensure Ofwat regulates these companies in the public interest and not in the interest of shareholders and director bonuses. If that means they go bust, then so be it. We can then renationalise them.
 
Stuart Frazer said:
I know it will hurt pension investments, but the public shouldn't be propping up businesses like Thames Water. Obviously, the Tories don't want one of their privatisation main utility companies to fail, so they will do all they can to avoid that happening and it going on their record. It will be interesting to see what Labour do. These Privatised Water Companies have creamed off dividends and director bonuses during the last 30 years when there should have been more investment in infrastructure. Something like £70B has been paid out in dividends! Imagine if, as a state asset, that had been reinvested in the infrastructure: less leaks, better sewage treatment, cleaner rivers, seas etc. The public has awoken to this and the fact that successive tory and labour governments have not regulated them properly. Feargal Sharkey is a beacon of light on this. The next labour Government should ensure Ofwat regulates these companies in the public interest and not in the interest of shareholders and director bonuses. If that means they go bust, then so be it. We can then renationalise them.
Click to expand...
I am often not right about things, but I was saying to people when these utilities were privatised that it would be in quarter of a century's time that the recklessness of this would start to be felt. I take little pleasure in being right on the money here.
 
If they don`t get their act together we`ll stop giving them our poop - we can put it straight in the river, same as they do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top