• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

ricky2tricky4city said:
Since privatisation it loaded itself with 15bn of debt while still paying out dividends and currently using circa 30% of income to service that debt. While neglecting infrastructure something akin to Old Trafford
Click to expand...
I disagree. Thames Water have around £155 million in liabilities according to their latest accounts which is perfectly reasonable for a company of their size. They are owned by a finance company that issues debt to finance its subsidiaries. This is common practice and completely unlike what happened to Man Utd which was a leveraged buy-out.
 
Kompakted said:
The water system is like the railway system. You have infrastructure and you have operations. Private operators have been brought in to run services using public infrastructure. The government has been happy for public anger to be directed at private companies when it was always their responsibility to fund infrastructure upgrades. Let's say that water had never been privatised. Water bills would still only ever have funded the ticking by of day-to-day operations. It was always central government's duty and gift to co-ordinate and fund the national consolidated infrastructure changes necessary to avoid the "running down" to this point. When you have private operators running public services, they're still public services. It's the government and local authorities responsibilities to ensure they're fit for purpose - now and in the future.

Andy Burnham keeps ranting about Avanti West Coast and how the constant delays are a symptom of privatisation. I was on an Avanti West Coast service from Manchester Picadilly to London Euston 3 weeks ago. The train got stuck outside Stockport for 40 minutes. The reason? A points failure. The points are owned and operated by Network Rail, a public body. Andy thinks this is Avanti's fault when the train I was on was a highly advanced tilting train purchased in the last 10 years by a private operator. The train is capable of 150 mph but it has to crawl mist of the way as its sat on crumbling victorian train track that is owned by the public.

The government did in the case of the railways commit to a huge national infrastructure project to try and modernise our intercity high speed rail. But look at the utter utter utter utter utter utter *repeat until you're so angry you turn red* balls up they've made of it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and it is one of my biggest, biggest criticisms of this method of operation. Taking the railways as an example, it was always ludicrous to expect a congruent and efficient service when various operators own various elements of the system. The primary responsibility has top sit with government for not taking more care of who they 'sell' what off to IMO. Yes, the ORR have oversight, but plainly there is a fracture in the system. I'd debate that the previous incumbants took their eyes off these balls to an egregious degree. Ditto with water. SAR seems to be the only tennable way to get a short-term hold on the issues, but it won't address the massive problem of an ancient system continually being expected to serve a modern population with next to zero investment. It's actually an exercise in disbelief to char the journey of Thames Water since the days Thatcher decided to privatise all the British water systems...needless to say, I chuckle every time I note that one of the owners over time (RWE from 2001-2006) was run by a chap called Dietmar Kuhnt; you'll forgive me for finding something strangely accurate about it all!!! Anyway, a long discussion for sure with no easy, straight-forward or cost effective answers at this specific point in time...
 
Kompakted said:
What's insecure about it is that if the housing market is dropping out of its behind on value due to your changes, banks will risk-price it accordingly and reduce the LTV they'll lend to in order to protect their positions. They'll also tighten who they'll lend to. People that have not previously owned a house/held a mortgage are high risk and a lot of these people in the rental market have poor credit history or irregular income.
Click to expand...

I think that's a massive generalization personally, albeit I accept that to some lenders, you're right.
Some people want the choice to remain fluid or mobile without the anchor of a mortgage tying them down.
Others cannot afford to buy -this is true I agree- but largely by virtue of a steroided housing market which has priced some people out from even a starter home.

One truth (well, IMO anyway!) is that if you do not have a mortgage right now, it is possibly smarter to put our money into a retirement account and invest in yourself that way. The way the world is going - with the volatility of political climate being what it is - being both nimble and able to pivot is a choice well worth having.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
It clearly an affordability question.

How do we rebalance this?
A brake on the housing market, either through natural market forces or government rules/taxation?
Wait for wages to catch up?
Rebirth of social housing for rung 1 and 2 of the ladder? Including a reinvestment right to buy loop?
Rent controls?
Innovative housing schemes - cheaper per unit cost?
Click to expand...

I think a rebirth of social housing would be the civilised thing to do.
Rent control is a very difficult one, as I understand the right of a property owner, but I also recognise the amount of relative 'gouging' there is. Of course, one person's gouge is another person's capitalism, so I suppose it depends how you define each. Tricky questions. I personally feel that society has an obligation to itself to make sure that people have access to housing, water, power, health care and a decent standard of education regardless of their financial position. I think it enriches society as a whole. I equally believe in people's rights to make money/run businesses for profit/attain wealth if they so wish. I suppose in every sense I always arrive at the classic Scandinavian model, where basic wages are higher, public services provided, taxes are higher (yes) and millionaires can be millionaires. Sadly, the single biggest enemy of everyone (IMO) is the destruction of the middle class and middle path. Extremes are increasingly dicating everything...I have wandered a bit but I think you know what I mean!
 
thfcsteff said:
Absolutely, and it is one of my biggest, biggest criticisms of this method of operation. Taking the railways as an example, it was always ludicrous to expect a congruent and efficient service when various operators own various elements of the system. The primary responsibility has top sit with government for not taking more care of who they 'sell' what off to IMO. Yes, the ORR have oversight, but plainly there is a fracture in the system. I'd debate that the previous incumbants took their eyes off these balls to an egregious degree. Ditto with water. SAR seems to be the only tennable way to get a short-term hold on the issues, but it won't address the massive problem of an ancient system continually being expected to serve a modern population with next to zero investment. It's actually an exercise in disbelief to char the journey of Thames Water since the days Thatcher decided to privatise all the British water systems...needless to say, I chuckle every time I note that one of the owners over time (RWE from 2001-2006) was run by a chap called Dietmar Kuhnt; you'll forgive me for finding something strangely accurate about it all!!! Anyway, a long discussion for sure with no easy, straight-forward or cost effective answers at this specific point in time...
Click to expand...
High speed rail is a case study in how badly we do infrastructure projects in the UK. Most of it has effectively been cancelled at this point in time as it stands due to spiralling costs. The government should have put some legal protections around the project to protect costs but they didn't. Therefore HS2 for example has had to fight through the courts for almost every mile of track laid. You have had ridiculous (and costly) decisions made, for example, to tunnel whole sections of track due to complaints and court challenges from local residents and businesses. The costs have slowly risen to the point where the project is untenable. The government should have restricted the right of challenge and just plonked the track on the shortest, most cost-effective route possible. That's what every other country does.
 
Kompakted said:
I'm not actually bothered whether they're privately or publically owned. You can make either system work. I'm pointing out that dividends are paid out as a result of money being paid in. The money becomes the company's money to do what it wants with. Investors expect investment. If there's no investment they'll eventually get less returns. New treatment works will be run more efficiently with less people and less repair works for example. Transformation and change is a big part of any private company's strategy to maintain profitability.
Click to expand...

No it doesn’t matter who owns it, what matters is the output: water quality, treatment etc.

Profit hungry investors care about returns not services. There is no alternative to Thames Water in its region. Same in every other region.

It’s obvious to anyone (who’s not not confined by ideology) that it isn’t an effective free market setup. And private investment in this instance serves profit and not service quality.

But Scara I appreciate you entertaining us with these burner accounts. It’s been fun over these international breaks.
 
thfcsteff said:
I think a rebirth of social housing would be the civilised thing to do.
Rent control is a very difficult one, as I understand the right of a property owner, but I also recognise the amount of relative 'gouging' there is. Of course, one person's gouge is another person's capitalism, so I suppose it depends how you define each. Tricky questions. I personally feel that society has an obligation to itself to make sure that people have access to housing, water, power, health care and a decent standard of education regardless of their financial position. I think it enriches society as a whole. I equally believe in people's rights to make money/run businesses for profit/attain wealth if they so wish. I suppose in every sense I always arrive at the classic Scandinavian model, where basic wages are higher, public services provided, taxes are higher (yes) and millionaires can be millionaires. Sadly, the single biggest enemy of everyone (IMO) is the destruction of the middle class and middle path. Extremes are increasingly dicating everything...I have wandered a bit but I think you know what I mean!
Click to expand...
I 100% get what you mean a fully agree.
Shelter, power and clean water are 100% non negotiable targets for humans ...closely followed by healthcare, education and public transport...the rest on one level or another is shopping.

Provide those fairly and to a good level and it gives EVERYONE a chance.
 
Every country I travel too with a strong economy is self sufficient on utilities, has its own transport system funded and run by its own country and… randomly… well maybe not… only really eat seasonal produce
So the money stays within the country on things that really matter
And those countries are the Nordics and Switzerland
When I tell my colleagues my kids have strawberry’s for their lunch every day they are almost stunned because they can’t get them in country
When we talk cost of electricity… again shock at our prices
Yes there are taxes in those countries but there are benefits from those
If we want to be a real first world country we need to understand what works elsewhere too
And subsidising other countries rail systems is typical of the farce we have created
 
Kompakted said:
I disagree. Thames Water have around £155 million in liabilities according to their latest accounts which is perfectly reasonable for a company of their size. They are owned by a finance company that issues debt to finance its subsidiaries. This is common practice and completely unlike what happened to Man Utd which was a leveraged buy-out.
Click to expand...
The end game is the same. Thames Water is carrying over 15bn in debt. Whether that debt is from a third party that enabled me to leverage a buy out of Thames Water or from various bond issues sold to a multitude of third parties matters little. It's probably worse given more than half that debt is pegged to inflation.
They have constantly raised debt against their assets to then pay out dividends (over 7bn)...the debt pile now standing at over 80% of their capital value. And for what?
This is a private company supposedly supplying a public service. They started at zero, zero debt.

You poo pood @SpurMeUp 's bemoaning of any money that's been sucked away by this approach/operation but it's all money gone from the pot. Do you get the sense they were doing anything to benefit us...it's below the bare minimum

United is no different. United had no debt when the Glazers took over. Used the assets of United (just like TW) to raise debt to buy the club. £1.2,bn they've taken out of United in dividends, interest payments and fees. How has that benefitted United? Our stadium probably cost £1.2bn...im sure United would love one of them instead.
 
Last edited:
ricky2tricky4city said:
The end game is the same. Thames Water is carrying over 15bn in debt. Whether that debt is from a third party that enabled me to leverage a buy out of Thames Water or from various bond issues sold to a multitude of third parties matters little. It's probably worse given more than half that debt is pegged to inflation.
They have constantly raised debt against their assets to then pay out dividends (over 7bn)...the debt pile now standing at over 80% of their capital value. And for what?
This is a private company supposedly supplying a public service. They started at zero, zero debt.

You poo pood @SpurMeUp 's bemoaning of any money that's been sucked away by this approach/operation but it's all money gone from the pot. Do you get the sense they were doing anything to benefit us...it's below the bare minimum

United is no different. United had no debt when the Glazers took over. Used the assets of United (just like TW) to raise debt to by the club. £1.2,bn they've taken out of United in dividends, interest payments and fees. How has that benefitted United? Our stadium probably cost £1.2bn...im sure United would love one of them instead.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget the dividend payment they pay out
 
The water companies and particularly the sewage has been an issue for me for years. Back when I lived in the witterings I used to kitesurf and was a member of the action group against the pumping of sewage into the sea.

That was under the previous labour government. No improvements under the tories, we will see if the is any under the new lot.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Every country I travel too with a strong economy is self sufficient on utilities, has its own transport system funded and run by its own country and… randomly… well maybe not… only really eat seasonal produce
So the money stays within the country on things that really matter
And those countries are the Nordics and Switzerland
When I tell my colleagues my kids have strawberry’s for their lunch every day they are almost stunned because they can’t get them in country
When we talk cost of electricity… again shock at our prices
Yes there are taxes in those countries but there are benefits from those
If we want to be a real first world country we need to understand what works elsewhere too
And subsidising other countries rail systems is typical of the farce we have created
Click to expand...

ITs scary how stark that fact is when you travel abroad. Like you in my work I get abroad alot and you travel distances comparable and its shocking how cheaper it is AND shock horror, who are the operators? Oh its the guys who are running our rail. It cost me £65.00 return to sandhurst for a meeting recently, probably 35 miles in length, I was fcuking astonished by the cost.
 
Grays_1890 said:
ITs scary how stark that fact is when you travel abroad. Like you in my work I get abroad alot and you travel distances comparable and its shocking how cheaper it is AND shock horror, who are the operators? Oh its the guys who are running our rail. It cost me £65.00 return to sandhurst for a meeting recently, probably 35 miles in length, I was fcuking astonished by the cost.
Click to expand...
As I say, our operators are nearly all overseas funds or companies owned by those countries
We literally aid them to keep their travel cheaper
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Every country I travel too with a strong economy is self sufficient on utilities, has its own transport system funded and run by its own country and… randomly… well maybe not… only really eat seasonal produce
So the money stays within the country on things that really matter
And those countries are the Nordics and Switzerland
When I tell my colleagues my kids have strawberry’s for their lunch every day they are almost stunned because they can’t get them in country
When we talk cost of electricity… again shock at our prices
Yes there are taxes in those countries but there are benefits from those
If we want to be a real first world country we need to understand what works elsewhere too
And subsidising other countries rail systems is typical of the farce we have created
Click to expand...
There is certainly a lot we can learn from other countries. I'm surprised more cherry picking of the best bits isn't more apparent between countries tbh.

Much like our football teams, its to a certain extent a culture thing imo (ie priorities/what's important)...whether that is fed from that countries population or the majority political ideals/parties they are used to over the decades.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
There is certainly a lot we can learn from other countries. I'm surprised more cherry picking of the best bits isn't more apparent between countries tbh.

Much like our football teams, its to a certain extent a culture thing imo (ie priorities/what's important)...whether that is fed from that countries population or the majority political ideals/parties they are used to over the decades.
Click to expand...
Some of it’s not possible of course but when I sit in meetings with people from all over and we compare notes it’s IMO the countries that have made things more complex that struggle for the basics

It why i mentioned seasonal food… why do we want strawberries all year round. It’s not natural but in the UK it’s now normal. I was in France in the summer and they were hard to get

Turn look at the utilities companies here.. w have EDF (France) EON (German), wind farms funded by Danes and Norwegians
New Nuclear power site being funded by china

Water companies paying dividends without making money and failing… badly

Avanti rail which at least part Italian … Italy a country with really poor rail (the view of Italian friends not mine) yet we think they can lead the way here. At least some likes were owned by Dutch and French train companies who are actually decent operators

These are basics for every country and keep the wheels turning
 
You have to wonder how low people are to support the likes of Reform despite the constant line of lies invented to create increased racial tension in this country. The latest lie about the UFC fighter from Canada being a brit who had been beaten by a refuge is a brand new low.

If you vote for them you need a serious look at yourself
 
Last edited:
Grays_1890 said:
You have to wonder how low people are to support the likes of Reform despite the constant line of lies invented to create increased racial tension in this country. The latest lie about the UFC fighter from Russia being a brit who had been beaten by a refuge is a brand new low.

If you vote for them you need a serious look at yourself
Click to expand...
What????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back