Jump to content

If Water Company Goes Bust. Who Pays?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, melthebell said:

and who was in charge for the majority of those 35 years?

The Tory government for most of those years but the Labour party were in charge for 13 years.   Both Tory and Labour governments have made mistakes or failed to introduce appropriate legislation.  My point is when Mrs Thatcher came to power industries that were nationalised at the time were not efficient and privatisation   made those industries more efficient during her time in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ofwat said poor performance by some firms was embedded, and named Northumbrian Water, Southern Water, South West Water, Thames Water, Welsh Water and Yorkshire Water as  lagging in the way they served customers and ran the system - 8 Dec 2022

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Axe said:

I am old enough to remember how inefficient industries that were nationalised were run when Mrs Thatcher came to power.  I remember British Leyland workers taking tents to work so they had had a good place to sleep while at work.  Enough said.

Well the private sector is no more efficient, it seems. All debt was wiped by the government at the point of privatisation (a gift of our money) and then they were gifted more of our money to help them get going, and now they have debts of c.£10 billion. There are probably countries with less debt! Absolutely useless (unless you're a shareholder).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Axe said:

The Tory government for most of those years but the Labour party were in charge for 13 years.   Both Tory and Labour governments have made mistakes or failed to introduce appropriate legislation.  My point is when Mrs Thatcher came to power industries that were nationalised at the time were not efficient and privatisation   made those industries more efficient during her time in office.

What was wrong with simply making them more efficient?    You would think that a little point like that would have been automatically thought of.

Thatcher just wanted everything specifically in private hands but we see how efficient some of them are don't we.

That would save all that money which goes to bosses & shareholders. and profits could be re-invested in the business.

I used to see a Seven Trent Water van, parked up every day for about 2 hours whilst the driver had a sleep.

I still see a Sheffield council vehicle parked up every day for a much  extended lunch break and paper reading session.

If workers are not doing their jobs,  then the bosses are not doing theirs.   no excuses.

 

17 minutes ago, Delbow said:

Well the private sector is no more efficient, it seems. All debt was wiped by the government at the point of privatisation (a gift of our money) and then they were gifted more of our money to help them get going, and now they have debts of c.£10 billion. There are probably countries with less debt! Absolutely useless (unless you're a shareholder).

Absolutely true,  which proves the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Axe said:

The Tory government for most of those years but the Labour party were in charge for 13 years.   Both Tory and Labour governments have made mistakes or failed to introduce appropriate legislation.  My point is when Mrs Thatcher came to power industries that were nationalised at the time were not efficient and privatisation   made those industries more efficient during her time in office.

Remember those sparkling blue seas while Labour were in power? Me either! 

 

2008:

 

Quote

Hundreds of bathing beaches have been contaminated with increased levels of sewage as the wet summer increases pressure on water treatment systems and forces millions of extra litres of toxic waste to be pumped into the sea.

Last month, two-thirds of the 488 designated bathing beaches, rivers and inland waters in England and Wales suffered increases in peak sewage pollution compared with the same period in 2006

 

Come on in - but watch out for the sewage, tampons and cotton buds

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/aug/23/pollution.water

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/06/2023 at 12:02, Pyrotequila said:

I'd imagine the government?
It's not like say, Debenhams going bust, supplying water is an essential service... to me it seems mad that something like that ever got privatized in the first place.

The government hasn't got any  money.  Its taxpayer's money and it will work out a lot more than if it had never been privatised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spilldig said:

The government hasn't got any  money.  Its taxpayer's money and it will work out a lot more than if it had never been privatised. 

They always seem to have enough for their own perks,  plus Royal weddings, funerals  & coronations.

It never was theirs to privatise.   It belonged to the taxpayers who paid for it all in the first place.

Governments are caretakers who are overseeing things for a limited time and,  we shouldn't allow them to think that they own everything, and can sell it at a whim.

They are doing the equivalent of living in a furnished flat,  and selling off the furniture,  so that it will be empty when they leave.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, alchresearch said:

Remember those sparkling blue seas while Labour were in power? Me either! 

 

2008:

 

 

Come on in - but watch out for the sewage, tampons and cotton buds

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/aug/23/pollution.water

Given that they'd inherited a privatised water industry, what would you have wanted them to do? Renationalise without compensation? That's what I would like, but I can't see you supporting that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Delbow said:

Given that they'd inherited a privatised water industry, what would you have wanted them to do? Renationalise without compensation? That's what I would like, but I can't see you supporting that.

Quite true,   Labour were left with little choice and it was the Nationalisation and the way Ofwat was set up which was the problem.

How do they build all that debt with a so called regulator watching them ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.