Bill to nationalise polluting water companies blocked by Government

16 comments

1. People on this sub seem obsessed with this, so let me make things very clear. There is no reason to believe that the troubles Thames Water finds itself in would’ve been avoided had the company been state owned.

   Scots Water, which is state owned and managed by the Scottish government, has acquired billions of pounds of debt and been involved in several water pollution scandals. I’m not saying Thames Water shouldn’t be state owned. I’m only saying that ofc the government doesn’t want anything to do with it.

   As illustrated by Scots Water, the government probably won’t be able to run it any better. So, from the government’s perspective, nationalising Thames Water means taking on its debts and the reputational liability of any environmental scandals in the future. It means no longer being able to blame corporate overlords for the evils at Thames Water. They’re now responsible.

   Thames Waters’ investors aren’t the baddies here.

   It’s the government that’s at fault because it doesn’t want to accept the costs of providing water utilities to its people. Instead, it’s currently happily privatising these losses to the investors it duped into buying shares in a public utility company subject to price controls that render it unable to generate any substantial profit.

   This is a nonsense situation all round.

2. As always, the real Bill we need is the empowerment for inspectors to be able to force water executives to drink a pint of runoff at random intervals in the year. Suddenly shareholder returns wouldn’t be the biggest priority anymore!

3. The answer to polluting is to fine the company. Make them pay for the clean-up and forbid rises in charges for one 2 years. I suspect they would soon get their house in order.

4. Good – the kneejerk reaction to nationalise is not the answer. I see no reason why woes of Thameswater should be a joint liability of the state and tax payers of the whole country, instead of being limited to the users of Thameswater services. Government has enough control over it through regulations and terms of service agreement. It would be more productive to ensure that regulatory oversight and long term vision for adequate capital expenditure requirements is laid out in future contracts than this nationalisation talk, where Government does not have greater expertise nor even a cohesive plan to resolve the matter in a tax efficient manner. In fact, if it did, ThamesWater wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with, nor would the equity investors who have lost all their equity stake.

5. Thames Water sock puppet accounts have been summoned to the sub.

6. Always remember that an email was leaked (excuse the pun) before the election, revealing that the Labour right had assured water companies they would not face nationalisation and instead advised them on improving their public relations:

   https://www.standard.co.uk/business/severn-trent-thames-water-nationalisation-labour-b1091238.html

   England is the only country in the world with a fully privatized water supply, and no amount of regulation or PR can fix it—because it’s a fundamentally flawed system that serves only shareholders.

   Reminds me of that Tony Benn quote where he said that if New Labour had been in power in the 18th century, they wouldn’t have abolished slavery but would have regulated it with “Ofslave.”

7. We shouldn’t yet. We should wait for the companies to run out of cash and then buy them for £1

8. This is the government we’re talking about here! We need to just take it from them! Take our water back!

9. My monthly water bill is almost the same as my electric.

10. > However environment minister Emma Hardy said it would cost more than £200 billion to renationalise the water industry. But Ms Hardy added the Government was committed to improving water quality and the wider industry.

    Not as per the bill… It would be a penalty for repeated failure.

11. This is truly the change everyone voted for. Right?

12. previous government left uk in ruins, broken and broke

    whats wrong with flooding green and pleasant great britain with raw sewage if it keeps the share price high and you profit

    oops there goes last nights dinner floating by, did you see that

13. Fines should be a number of shares of the company instead of set £ amounts.

14. Why am I paying £200 a year specifically to invest in new infrastructure. Not Maintenance or supply that was £490 a year. But investment to increase the capabilities and capital of the company. If I invest I expect a share. Robbery. Sanctified by the regulator and ultimately the Government.

15. It’s like Russia has control of our government is there anything it will do to benefit the people and not finance

16. Don’t get me started about big business flooding the government with shady deals

Comments are closed.