blandy

That’s where the government needs to enact law. Clearly from reading that, the shareholders are calling a bluff along the lines you outline. But that needn’t be the end of the matter. Let’s assume that the current law requires that company to provide a level of service to customers and to meet certain standards or else punishment. If the punishment is worse than the hit to shareholder returns, then the choice is different to that they’ve made as detailed in the letter. One current problem across services that have been privatised is that it’s private profit when things go well, then the public has to pick up the pieces if it goes pear shaped. That should not be the case. It’s happened with trains and buses and energy…and banks, too, though they were not once nationally owned (in living memory at least). Leaving the EU hasn’t brought all that about and membership didn’t stop the Tories doing Tory things. But them having done it, I’m certain that reverting to 1970’s public ownership isn’t the answer.

Of course. I totally agree. That is in the past and the shareholder gains and dividends have left. They’re not in play any more. For me the questions is what happens, or should happen from this point on. My priority would be stop the pollution, stop the profiteering, build the necessary pipes, reservoirs, purification plants, sewers and fix the crumbling dams and stuff. Absolutely none of that is solved by a change of legal ownership. New owners (guvmint) might do a better job, though there’s no guarantee that given the general **** state of everything, water will be a spending priority. So how do you most effectively address the problems in the short to medium term? You basically force the companies to do what they should do anyway, and as discussed above. Yes privatisation was wrong, but we are where we are.

Except it doesn't all go out of the window. If the keys are handed back the shareholders and pension funds and logistics get **** over. If "the keys are handed back" then that's because the shareholders (and therefore the actual owners) either own shares which have already plummeted in value, because the Company is bust, or they have authorised the board to hand the keys back, via an EGM and vote and they voluntarily take the loss of their shares. If the company is bust, and unable to get the shareholders to stump up money to rescue it, or to allow a new share issue (thus devaluing existing shares), then the Gov't would have to intervene to ensure the taps keep flowing with water, but that's a case different from "nationalising all water companies". It's simplistic in the extreme if anyone were to think that "nationalising it" fixes everything. Yes, it shouldn't ever have been privatised, but no, a government deciding to reverse that model with water would have huge adverse consequences, as well as creating some opportunities to run it all differently. But stuff would still need fixing, people would still see bills rise, pollution would still need stopping and reservoirs building.

Of course, nationalisation isn't impossible, I agree. What I'm getting at is there isn't a simple solution (not that you claim there is, I'm just speaking generally). It's kind of on these lines. If the ownership is changed tomorrow, or after an election, there's some things. Like you say, the Gov't in nationalising water either pays the current share price for each company, or they hit pension funds, Councils who have ownership of shares, individuals who do in the pocket. Some might just be venture capitalists and hedge funds and elicit little sympathy, but others will be Decent and necessary share owners. Then there's the actual issues - pollution and discharges and leaks and insufficient reservoirs. As the new owner, suddenly the Gov't (or the taxpayer, realistically) has to pay to fix those things. So bills go up. Then there's the actual people working for the water industry - clerks generating bills and answering phones, maintenance people and contractors - they're all going to be exactly the same folks. And maybe you bin off the senior management and directors and execs...and replace them with, who? There would be a leadership vacuum for a while and that would lead to chaos for a period. Is Grant Shapps or Suella or Angela Eagles or Angela Rayner or whoever going to run it any better? and then they get reshuffled and the next politician comes in and has to learn the ropes from scratch. And there's the huge amount of time it would take Parliament to pass a bill to nationalise all the water companies. There's other stuff more urgent. I guess I'm saying there's no magic bullet fix. Now if a water company (privately owned) goes bust, then it's a little different, like with the train companies. At that point the government pretty much has to intervene to keep people's water flowing. And then you'd have one or two nationalised, in all but name, and the others still private. Neither one thing or the other. So, to me it seems like legally binding requirements for infrastructure fettlement, limits on pollution, with severe penalties, enforced, strict monitoring, via properly staffed and resourced environment agency, and OFWAT and so on is a more pragmatic solution.

It's not a solution. It's an idea, and it has some merits, of course. But also some drawbacks. It would have been better never to have privatised it, absolutely, but now it is, it's not a simple reverse situation, unfortunately.

Another alternative is (the threat of) a windfall tax - "if you invest in infrastucture, that's fine and good, if you pay out dividends above a threshold, then we'll tax the **** out of you". That's a simplification, but it's entirely possible to incentivise investment and de-incentivise profiteering and excessive dividends and executive pay etc. The share price of oil and energy companies seems to have survived windfall taxes.

The other reason, though profit is big enough, is a kind of “small state” ideology - an Englishman should be free to conduct his affairs without government interference. Oh and also because they’re words removed.

Wordle 1,013 3/6* nice.

Posts removed. This is not a thread for individual player merits or who you'd like to see in the Euros squad etc. Please start a thread, or use a relevant existing thread for those discussions. Thanks.

The EU would and did take nations to court if they broke the regulations and EU laws on water pollution. After we joined the EU we had to clean up seas and rivers. The UK current government (via the regulator, OFWAT and the Environmental agency, which have been weakened by the same government) basically doesn't take polluters to court, and free from EU law, there's no comeback for their laxity/blind eye turning.

It’s brilliant, isn’t it. It’s going to lead to all kinds of implosion. They’re even doing it to their in-house newspaper, the Torygraph.

Wordle 1,012 6/6*

It makes everything better. Nothing fishy about it at all!

Make sure you cancel the direct debit or whatever method, now. You’ll forget, or they’ll take the money anyway and then…

Some of those seem unlikely- I mean 5:1 for Boris Johnson? ditto 10:1 and 20:1 for May and Truss. They’ve had their goes. The angry ham defected to Reform, Thatchers brain in a horse is standing down at the next election and so it’s gotta be the Parrot, or the bag of snakes. Suella or Kemi, then.

Back on the horse Wordle 1,011 3/6*

If you've got a 12" er you only need to go at 33 rpm

Open Office (and Libre Office which is another alternative, and arguably better IMO) work with excel and word files etc. fine - you can convert them to open format, but you don't have to. You don't have to keep the Microsoft programme(s). You can uninstall them via "add or remove programmes" in the control panel - hit the windows key and type "remove" and the drop down will show that option and then you can click it and pick what you want to bin off.

200 day streak over Wordle 1,010 X/6*

It is, yes. I agree. I guess the problem is that if the state runs it all, then the department for water might well get its budget cut, because austerity, or because the NHS or education or whatever is deemed more politically necessary. I mean there were nationwide hose pipe bans and stuff in the 1970s and a big kerfuffle about water pipes leaking and so on. Whichever model of ownership there is, the problem is ineffective control and regulation.

Planted out some broad bean seeds today, put other bean and chilli and tomato seeds into windowsill pots, cut back some shrubs and bushes and the front garden looks kind of threadbare compared to its previous jungle self. Hopefully the bushes recover, but if not the veg can go where they are/were. No idea if any of the seeds will grow, they’re just saved ones from eating stuff. Not got any spuds, though. Bit of an oversight.

In the future, water will be the cause of wars. Scaling that conflict back, Wales, say, might decide it needs to stop sending water to neighbouring places, because needs the water there for locals. Or take any region and similar circs. So leaving planning and responsibility to local companies or authorities isn’t an answer, though they surely need to be involved?

Ta. Presumably to housing developers. Presumably housing shortages are something of a long standing problem? I’m not defending it, by the way. Just wondering if the interlinked complexity of different issues isn’t more complex than a headline or a tweet. It seems like by being laisse faire government has allowed long term planning and so on to just be neglected and not even understood or considered. The network, and it is a network isn’t just a “local” thing. Dryer places get water from wetter ones and stuff. So as you’ve posted before, Wales sells water to Merseyside or wherever. The South east gets water from the midlands or East Anglia or wherever. So while the network is joined up, at least to a degree, it looks like the national uk thinking isn’t.

Genuine question. Is it down to water companies to determine future growth in water needs, assess sites for reservoir suitability and apply for permission to build them? I’ve no quibble with them being profiteering, polluting scumbags, but didn’t know it was their job to plan for this stuff.

Swapped my starter, seeing as yesterday’s word was so close to it. Didn’t help much. Wordle 1,009 5/6*