THAMES WATER

[Scubadog]

Interested to know....all those in favour of nationalisation, why do you think this will actually work?

Given that welsh water is a not for profit, partially run by the Welsh government, and yet is consistently in the worst performing companies is, with the highest levels of pklluetes rivers and beaches on the uk?

Or maybe the Scottish water, owned and operates by Scottish government, can anyone e tell how that performs? (Trick question) because despite having the exact same infrastructure as the rest of the uk, their owners (the Scottish government) have conviniently decided not to impose thw same reporting of sewage overflows as thw restnof the uk. Any ideas why that may be?

Maybe people dont realise, but most councils operate their own sewage systems.....failure rates of >90% in my experience compare to compliance rates of >95% for most water companies.


And out of interest, given the current estimates for separating our combined sewage and storm overflows system is around d the £600bn mark, and given that the industry makes less than £3bn a year profit......where do people think that money will come from? Honest question....

 

[Scubadog]

Strange situation eh. They sell what they charge us to take away. Actually the road gutter is fully blocked so nothing goes anywhere...
Banding is terrible, were 3% over the banding gap and get slammed the whole amount.

The price of corrupt company practices and stripping by debt as someone said earlier. I'll be using that one.

Road gutters ate not the responsibility of water companies. That is sadly down to the shambles of local councils. Here's a fun question to ask them; given that each gully is supposed to be inspected annually, ask when the one outside your house was last inspected and by what method. Usually its dine by "a drive by in dry weather". Obviously this doesn't work as the on eoutaide our house had grass growing from it for the last 3 years.....

 

[Newchodge]

Interested to know....all those in favour of nationalisation, why do you think this will actually work?

Given that welsh water is a not for profit, partially run by the Welsh government, and yet is consistently in the worst performing companies is, with the highest levels of pklluetes rivers and beaches on the uk?

Or maybe the Scottish water, owned and operates by Scottish government, can anyone e tell how that performs? (Trick question) because despite having the exact same infrastructure as the rest of the uk, their owners (the Scottish government) have conviniently decided not to impose thw same reporting of sewage overflows as thw restnof the uk. Any ideas why that may be?

Maybe people dont realise, but most councils operate their own sewage systems.....failure rates of >90% in my experience compare to compliance rates of >95% for most water companies.


And out of interest, given the current estimates for separating our combined sewage and storm overflows system is around d the £600bn mark, and given that the industry makes less than £3bn a year profit......where do people think that money will come from? Honest question....

I do not necessarily think that nationalisation will work. What it will do is to keep the funding within the industry, not paying out billions to sharehlders when that money should have been spent on the infrastructure.

 

[Scubadog]

I do not necessarily think that nationalisation will work. What it will do is to keep the funding within the industry, not paying out billions to sharehlders when that money should have been spent on the infrastructure.

How many billions were paid to shareholders and how many billions have been put up for investment? Presumably you know?
Like I said (and you ignored) given the subject £3bn annual profits....who or where do you think should stump up the extra 600bn to tear up everyone's driveways, patios and hardstanding and re route downpipes from roofs to implement the type of system everyone is now demanding?


With a profit of £3bn, and a cost if £600bn would you put your money up for that?

 

[Newchodge]

How many billions were paid to shareholders and how many billions have been put up for investment? Presumably you know?
Like I said (and you ignored) given the subject £3bn annual profits....who or where do you think should stump up the extra 600bn to tear up everyone's driveways, patios and hardstanding and re route downpipes from roofs to implement the type of system everyone is now demanding?


With a profit of £3bn, and a cost if £600bn would you put your money up for that?

No. I expect the government, owning the water system, to pay for it. As they pay for motorways, or new runways at airports, or wars.

In 2022 the water company dividends paid £1.4bn in dividends, an increase from £540mn the previous year. They did this while puring raw sewage illegally into our waterways becaue they could not, apparently, afford proper treatment works.

 

[thetiger2015]

who or where do you think should stump up the extra 600bn to tear up everyone's driveways, patios and hardstanding and re route downpipes from roofs to implement the type of system everyone is now demanding?

The private companies aren't going to do that anyway, plus they're milking any profit out of the system, knowing the government would have to step in to 'tear up everyone's driveways...'.

Also, the £600bn you quote, wouldn't be a sum to be paid today, it would be over say 25 years, possibly even longer. So, £24bn a year or less? How much profit have the private water companies made in the last 25 years? Enough to cover most of that bill...I don't know?

Privatisation can work, if it is heavily regulated and profits are sufficiently taxed to ensure investment before shareholder profit. Shareholders can have their cake, once the companies they invest in are truly profitable and have completed sufficient investment in the services they operate.

Remember, these private water companies are also making huge profits from utilising 100+ year old pipework. They didn't invest in this, they didn't spend any money on the Victorian sewage system, it was already in place. They've just profited from it, without maintaining anything.

 

[IanSuth]

Road gutters ate not the responsibility of water companies. That is sadly down to the shambles of local councils. Here's a fun question to ask them; given that each gully is supposed to be inspected annually, ask when the one outside your house was last inspected and by what method. Usually its dine by "a drive by in dry weather". Obviously this doesn't work as the on eoutaide our house had grass growing from it for the last 3 years.....

I spent 7 years persuading the council a surface water gully outside my house didnt exist hence the flooding caused by their new cycle path across the end of the road (higher than road surface so water pooled at end of road)

It showed on their maps and was apparently regularly cleaned and cleared according to their logs - pity i have lived here since 1999 and it hasnt existed in all that time - because there is culvert parallel to the cycle path passing under the end of the road too close to the surface for services to pass above (it is made of 6' x 4' cast concrete sections but isnt on the council or thames waters maps as it is Environment agency being a culverted stream that outfalls directly into a main river. We only know as it goes via a junction under our back garden where it is joined by the outfall of a Victorian ornamental lake and we once found Environment agy workers lifitn ghte cover in our garden as they were backtracking what they thought was a diesel leak into the river - was actually a local school had refilled fuel oil tank in the autumn without putting the drain plug back in and 10,000litres flowed back out and under my house on it's way to the river.

We had a sewerage leak uphill under the cycle path soon after they laid it (vibro roller over 40 year old pitched fibre sewerage pipe) whilst they argued over replacing entire sewer and who paid we had Lanes 4 Drains parked up pumping every few hours for 10 weeks - they ran out of overtime for the tanker driver so the area manager was then sat there in a tanker overnight. He spent the time trying to update the sewer map he had on his laptop. It was a total fabrication - it appeared that what thames water had given them when they took over maintenance of the area, was the original map provided by the develop to the now non existent county planning team when they designed the estate in the late 60's early 70's, It was NEVER updated with what was actually laid or any later changes so sewers flowed in different directions and had junctions in different places - he only did about 25% of the local bits in the 5 weeks he was sat outside. One of the main issues was that same culvert - his map has sewers flowing across the cycle path which couldnt due to the culvert which effectively split what was shown as a single integrated system into 2 discrete ones - all the other changes flowed from that.

Old guy locally says the stream was culverted in the 50's !!!!

 

[Scubadog]

---

The private companies aren't going to do that anyway, plus they're milking any profit out of the system, knowing the government would have to step in to 'tear up everyone's driveways...'.

Also, the £600bn you quote, wouldn't be a sum to be paid today, it would be over say 25 years, possibly even longer. So, £24bn a year or less? How much profit have the private water companies made in the last 25 years? Enough to cover most of that bill...I don't know?

Privatisation can work, if it is heavily regulated and profits are sufficiently taxed to ensure investment before shareholder profit. Shareholders can have their cake, once the companies they invest in are truly profitable and have completed sufficient investment in the services they operate.

Remember, these private water companies are also making huge profits from utilising 100+ year old pipework. They didn't invest in this, they didn't spend any money on the Victorian sewage system, it was already in place. They've just profited from it, without maintaining anything.

Okay....so still, £25bn a year investment (on top of the £10bn they make each year already) and only a profit of <£3bn.

Honestly.....would you invest in that?

Remember these are businesses, like us all, we expect a profit and a teturn from any investment. Current returns are around 10%, this is governed by OFWAT. I don't think that's excessive.

It is a common misconception that the pipes are 100 years old. Actually, the level of investment suprises most people when they actually see it. Fun fact: 65% of the debt amassed is not through dividend payments, but through capital investments.

Thames specifically has £15bn of debt, of which £8bn is attributed to dividends.

 

[Scubadog]

No. I expect the government, owning the water system, to pay for it. As they pay for motorways, or new runways at airports, or wars.

In 2022 the water company dividends paid £1.4bn in dividends, an increase from £540mn the previous year. They did this while puring raw sewage illegally into our waterways becaue they could not, apparently, afford proper treatment works.

No....incorrect.

Only a handful of discharges into waterways are illegal. Most (guesstimate >99.5%) are legal and as the system has been designed and operated since its inception. Only a few are illegal, and where they are they are rightly prosecuted.

Heck...It is most likely that YOU and YOUR house mix YOUR sewage with YOUR rainwater together needlessly. It's an unpopular fact....but it is actually us the population, our sherr laziness and desire for pathed oarking spaces, patios, and hard standings (combined with weather change) that is responsible for overwhelming the sewer system with rain water.

I bet most people on hear have extra hard standings, I bet 95% have combined sewer systems, I bet none have any form of SuDS. And we wonder why the system has to release the rain water we all dump into the sewer when it rains?

Add to that the morons that dump wet wipes and more often than not femal sanitary products Into a system not designed for it, and you may begin to realise the problem. It always makes me laugh when people moan about tampons floating in rivers after a storm discharge. Moaning at water companies when in fact they should be moaning at the dimwit that dumped them in the sewer!


Why do you think all political parties that have any chance of election have stepped back from privatisation? Put it this way....do you want to cmtake the hundreds of billions from pensions, schools, police, NHS or any other public service?

That's before we even spoke about the huge drought the south of England curently faces...(dryer than Jerusalem) and the hundreds of billions needed to fix that problem.

 

[Newchodge]

---

Okay....so still, £25bn a year investment (on top of the £10bn they make each year already) and only a profit of <£3bn.

Honestly.....would you invest in that?

Remember these are businesses, like us all, we expect a profit and a teturn from any investment. Current returns are around 10%, this is governed by OFWAT. I don't think that's excessive.

It is a common misconception that the pipes are 100 years old. Actually, the level of investment suprises most people when they actually see it. Fun fact: 65% of the debt amassed is not through dividend payments, but through capital investments.

Thames specifically has £15bn of debt, of which £8bn is attributed to dividends.

If £8bn is attributed to dividends and the debt is £15bn, then 53% is attributable to dividends.

 

[Newchodge]

No....incorrect.

Only a handful of discharges into waterways are illegal. Most (guesstimate >99.5%) are legal and as the system has been designed and operated since its inception. Only a few are illegal, and where they are they are rightly prosecuted.

Heck...It is most likely that YOU and YOUR house mix YOUR sewage with YOUR rainwater together needlessly. It's an unpopular fact....but it is actually us the population, our sherr laziness and desire for pathed oarking spaces, patios, and hard standings (combined with weather change) that is responsible for overwhelming the sewer system with rain water.

I bet most people on hear have extra hard standings, I bet 95% have combined sewer systems, I bet none have any form of SuDS. And we wonder why the system has to release the rain water we all dump into the sewer when it rains?

Add to that the morons that dump wet wipes and more often than not femal sanitary products Into a system not designed for it, and you may begin to realise the problem. It always makes me laugh when people moan about tampons floating in rivers after a storm discharge. Moaning at water companies when in fact they should be moaning at the dimwit that dumped them in the sewer!


Why do you think all political parties that have any chance of election have stepped back from privatisation? Put it this way....do you want to cmtake the hundreds of billions from pensions, schools, police, NHS or any other public service?

That's before we even spoke about the huge drought the south of England curently faces...(dryer than Jerusalem) and the hundreds of billions needed to fix that problem.

Yeah, right.

 

[Scubadog]

If £8bn is attributed to dividends and the debt is £15bn, then 53% is attributable to dividends.

Well done....but the overall figure covers all of the uk, and the specific Thames figure refers specifically to Thames. Do you see how that works?

 

[Scubadog]

Yeah, right.

Yea....it is right. Every single piece of it.

Maybe worth looking beyond media hype and activist groups (who interestingly enough have increased turnover and profit in the last years as a result of their campaign).

Every actually thought you might not be aware of the full facts or truth? Have you actually applied any critical analysis? Or do you just beleive the headlines? Ask yourself.....why is it only in the last year that this has been bought to your attention with Every media outlet seemingly having this as their banner? Nothing has changed......yet all of a sudden, everyone wants radical change. Why? What has been the catalyst? Who has instigated it and why? What are the real figures? Have you ever been to a sewage works? Have you ever even spoken to an actual specialist in the subject? If not, why not? How can you be sure you even know the slightest bit of truth to make your decisions on?

Well the good news....you now have at least been guided slightly by a non biased specialist who know the industry inside and out for better and worse.

 

[Scubadog]

Yeah, right.

Which part specifically do you struggle to understand as truth?

Have you ever checked where your sewage and rain water goes? I bet you (like most) don't even know what type of system you have.

 

[Newchodge]

Well done....but the overall figure covers all of the uk, and the specific Thames figure refers specifically to Thames. Do you see how that works?

It works by showing you are using figures to bolster your argument, that are not accurate. Plus you have ignored my point about nationalisation.

 

[Newchodge]

Ask yourself.....why is it only in the last year that this has been bought to your attention with Every media outlet seemingly having this as their banner?

Garbage. I raised the issue of water company failures and dividends with an old friend who has been dead for 2 years. It has not just been brought to my attention.

 

[Scubadog]

It works by showing you are using figures to bolster your argument, that are not accurate. Plus you have ignored my point about nationalisation.

Maybe get an accountant to explain how it works?

They made a profit, they pay dividends, but because they invested their money back into the business, their dividends had to be paid by debt.

What point have you made that you want a response too?

If you want a response to that then respond to my points as to why nationalisation has failed so spectacularly in Wales and Scotland?

 

[Scubadog]

Garbage. I raised the issue of water company failures and dividends with an old friend who has been dead for 2 years. It has not just been brought to my attention.

So for more than 2 years you have been making assumptions on a complete lack of even the mist basic understanding of the system and how it works?

Weird.

 

[Newchodge]

Which part specifically do you struggle to understand as truth?

Have you ever checked where your sewage and rain water goes? I bet you (like most) don't even know what type of system you have.

It doesn't matter whether I know what kind of system I have. What matters is the complete failure of the water companies, since privatisation, to invest in updating the systems. That is what Thatcher claimed they would do. That is why they were privatised. That is why Thatcher wrote off the £5bn debt that existed in the industry at the time. Try reading this: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rivatisation-england-water-1989-failed-regime

 

[Scubadog]

No. I expect the government, owning the water system, to pay for it. As they pay for motorways, or new runways at airports, or wars.

In 2022 the water company dividends paid £1.4bn in dividends, an increase from £540mn the previous year. They did this while puring raw sewage illegally into our waterways becaue they could not, apparently, afford proper treatment works.

How has the government building roads and airports worked out for you so far?


Also...please, I've only specialised in this industry for 25 years, with countless qualifications in the treatment process and science behind how these things actually work, so, I'm all open to you explaining what I along with every other specialist has missed. Just how do you treat rain water that you have mkxex with your sewage? It has low BOD, high COD and flows quickly for short periods to time. All of which means no biological mass can be grown to treat the watse and the only process known to man that can remove the chemical pollutants is distillation......how do you distill a few thousand litres every second in every small town across the uk?

You know...since you beleive it is so easy to build treatment works to treat fouled rain water......surely you know the answers.......right?

 

[Scubadog]

It doesn't matter whether I know what kind of system I have. What matters is the complete failure of the water companies, since privatisation, to invest in updating the systems. That is what Thatcher claimed they would do. That is why they were privatised. That is why Thatcher wrote off the £5bn debt that existed in the industry at the time. Try reading this: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rivatisation-england-water-1989-failed-regime

So you don't know...
You don't know that you are catching rain water, then dumping YOUR waste in it, then hoping someone else will deal with it?


Know, it's strange, all of my employment throughout my working life has been involved with updating sewage and water systems. Billions of pounds of projects. Entire new treatment works, updating old sites, installing new processes. If they haven't been investing. Then I'm interested to know what I have been doing all that time?

Do you even know what the targets are for this current amp? Do you even know what an amp period is? No...of course you don't!

Let me explain....ofwat tell the water companies what they have to achieve. This amp (5 year investment period, of which we are in year 3) is mostly about phosphate removal. All water companies have had new phosphate constents placed on them, so they have ALL been investing in phosphate plants (billions of pounds of it).

Last amp targets were mostly driven towards consented flows, nitrate removal and disinfection of bathing waters to align with bathing water regulations.

And so it goes on....year after year, amp after amp


So no, they haven't just sat there doing nothing, the regulator tells them specifically what targets they have to achieve and of they achieve them, they get a pat on the back. If they don't, they get penalised and the amount they can charge customers gets reduced. That's why you see different charges across the country.


But surely....you kust have know that before you jumped to your conclusions right? Which wither means you were mistaken to suggest they haven't invested or you just didn't know what you were talking about.

 

[Newchodge]

So you don't know...
You don't know that you are catching rain water, then dumping YOUR waste in it, then hoping someone else will deal with it?

I do wish you would learn to read. I said it doesn't matter whether I know. Not that I don't know.

With all your experience and training and qualifications, please give me 1 way in which privatisation has benefitted the water industry in this country.

 

[Scubadog]

It doesn't matter whether I know what kind of system I have. What matters is the complete failure of the water companies, since privatisation, to invest in updating the systems. That is what Thatcher claimed they would do. That is why they were privatised. That is why Thatcher wrote off the £5bn debt that existed in the industry at the time. Try reading this: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rivatisation-england-water-1989-failed-regime

Did you actually read the link you posted? Or did you just grab the headline?

Only...here....allow me to quote from it directly for you (and everyone else's benefit).


“single greatest justification for privatisation is competition for capital”; by which he means that if water companies were in the public sector, their investment would be in competition with other priorities, from HS2 to hospitals, and the result, inevitably, would be underinvestment."


So I ask you again....where would the money come from to pay for the capital to operate the and maintain the system? Schools maybe? NHS perhaps? It has to be something....let's hear which one you would sacrifice.


I mean that is presuming you actually agree with content of the link you shared....right?

 

[Newchodge]

Did you actually read the link you posted? Or did you just grab the headline?

Only...here....allow me to quote from it directly for you (and everyone else's benefit).


“single greatest justification for privatisation is competition for capital”; by which he means that if water companies were in the public sector, their investment would be in competition with other priorities, from HS2 to hospitals, and the result, inevitably, would be underinvestment."


So I ask you again....where would the money come from to pay for the capital to operate the and maintain the system? Schools maybe? NHS perhaps? It has to be something....let's hear which one you would sacrifice.


I mean that is presuming you actually agree with content of the link you shared....right?

With all your experience and training and qualifications, please give me 1 way in which privatisation has benefitted the water industry in this country.

 

[Scubadog]

I do wish you would learn to read. I said it doesn't matter whether I know. Not that I don't know.

With all your experience and training and qualifications, please give me 1 way in which privatisation has benefitted the water industry in this country.

You dodged the question again....funny that....don't you have the answers?

But here...allow me to directly answer yours. And I will answer it directly with the content of the link to the guardian YOU posted.

“single greatest justification for privatisation is competition for capital”; by which he means that if water companies were in the public sector, their investment would be in competition with other priorities, from HS2 to hospitals, and the result, inevitably, would be underinvestment.


And it does matter that you don't know. It shows your arrogance to the situation that you cause.

 

[Newchodge]

Did you actually read the link you posted? Or did you just grab the headline?

Only...here....allow me to quote from it directly for you (and everyone else's benefit).


“single greatest justification for privatisation is competition for capital”; by which he means that if water companies were in the public sector, their investment would be in competition with other priorities, from HS2 to hospitals, and the result, inevitably, would be underinvestment."


So I ask you again....where would the money come from to pay for the capital to operate the and maintain the system? Schools maybe? NHS perhaps? It has to be something....let's hear which one you would sacrifice.


I mean that is presuming you actually agree with content of the link you shared....right?

I like your out of context quote. Let me expand it:

Indeed – so why should directors get million-pound salaries and bonuses? Why should shareholders and bondholders get returns far in excess of those we offer to investors in government debt? His answer to this is that the “single greatest justification for privatisation is competition for capital”; by which he means that if water companies were in the public sector, their investment would be in competition with other priorities, from HS2 to hospitals, and the result, inevitably, would be underinvestment.

This is helpful for two reasons. First, it’s more credible than other defences of privatisation. It doesn’t claim some mythical gains from the magic of competitive markets. Nor is it an economic argument. From a rational perspective, there’s no reason why the government can’t invest as much as is justified by the underlying economics. Instead, Colvile’s argument is political. It implies that governments, especially but not only Conservative ones, pursue stupid, self-defeating policies for short-term political reasons, so it’s worth consumers massively overpaying the private sector to secure the level of investment that is required, even if the public sector could, in theory, do it more cheaply.

 

[Scubadog]

I like your out of context quote. Let me expand it:

Indeed – so why should directors get million-pound salaries and bonuses? Why should shareholders and bondholders get returns far in excess of those we offer to investors in government debt? His answer to this is that the “single greatest justification for privatisation is competition for capital”; by which he means that if water companies were in the public sector, their investment would be in competition with other priorities, from HS2 to hospitals, and the result, inevitably, would be underinvestment.

This is helpful for two reasons. First, it’s more credible than other defences of privatisation. It doesn’t claim some mythical gains from the magic of competitive markets. Nor is it an economic argument. From a rational perspective, there’s no reason why the government can’t invest as much as is justified by the underlying economics. Instead, Colvile’s argument is political. It implies that governments, especially but not only Conservative ones, pursue stupid, self-defeating policies for short-term political reasons, so it’s worth consumers massively overpaying the private sector to secure the level of investment that is required, even if the public sector could, in theory, do it more cheaply.

Yea....its agreeing with my point entirely.


Do you honestly think more money would have been invested if it were run by a public body?

Do you know ANY public organisations that run well?

Why is it that welsh water (run by Welsh government as a not for profit) are one of the worst performing water companies in the whole of Europe let alone the uk?

Why is it that we don't even know ow how Scottish water (government owned) perform because funnily enough.....they don't report like the rest do!

Why is it that EVERY government owned sewage site I have EVER visited has a failure rate if >90% when the average for water companies is a compliance rate >95%?

Surely there is evidence enough to the points made by me in agreement with your article.


Come on....put your scoailist left wing political ideologies to one side.....this is a business forum, and you should be able to approach this from a business perspective. I honestly beleive that is half the problem with these discussions. People have politicised it. It's dangerous, incorrect and risks wasting huge sums of money on things that won't even solve the problems. It is ridiculous when supposed smart and educated peopled fall for it.

 

[IanSuth]

Which part specifically do you struggle to understand as truth?

Have you ever checked where your sewage and rain water goes? I bet you (like most) don't even know what type of system you have.

I have

The only iffy thing here is that the gutter from my conservatory (and water butt overflow) go into a waste pipe that outfalls directly into the aforementioned culvert.

My sewage (and sink outflows) go into a Thames Water sewer which is pitch fibre pipe and likely to fail imminently. My roof gutters feed into the surface water drainage system (along with road gullies) which is totally separate (although I have no idea where it goes after the end of my street)

[This is info gleaned from conversations with the Lanes4Drains area manager from when he was sat outside my house for weeks]

 

[thetiger2015]

Come on....put your scoailist left wing political ideologies to one side.....this is a business forum, and you should be able to approach this from a business perspective. I honestly beleive that is half the problem with these discussions. People have politicised it. It's dangerous, incorrect and risks wasting huge sums of money on things that won't even solve the problems. It is ridiculous when supposed smart and educated peopled fall for it.

...but the free for all private system that you adore so much has almost zero benefit to UK tax payers? We get almost the same level of poor quality service but pay shareholder profits on top. Look at the trains. You would say they were rubbish in the 60's, yeah, maybe, but at least we paid peanuts and got peanuts. Now we pay gold coins and get...peanuts.

Same is happening with the NHS, privatisation just increases the cost, you don't get a better service. It's the same ambulance, the same hospital bed, the same doctor but now it costs 10 x more because everything in the hospital has a cost/profit calculation. Before, it was just a cost of saving lives and we all paid toward it with taxes because, that's the right thing to do!

The only sensible argument I'd accept is to have heavily regulated private investment in critical infrastructure. That won't happen. MPs have their own interests and investments, they won't do themselves out of personal profit!

You have to cut out the second jobs for MPs, cut out the private investments for MPs, cut out the incentive to make money on the side, anyone working in government should only work for the government.. Then get tough on the private companies that operate utilities. They can only take profit out if they've invested X amount in urgent work, shareholders get paid last. Still plenty of profit to be made but they have to actually put their money in first and it has to be utilised in full before they get their pay out.

Same with rail. Have private companies but honest to christ, make them actually talk to eachother. This nonsensical, half baked, broken transport network is ridiculous. How many different bus and train companies do we actually need? Why do they all use different systems? Why are ticket prices 3 times higher than they need to be?

Oh..here's one part of the answer:
"British taxpayers are paying for nationalised rail services in Europe, and the French, Dutch and German people would like to say thank you." https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-taxpayers-subsidising-european-train-9556521 <<< It's an old link but come on, there's about 40 different articles online at the moment.

 

[japancool]

They made a profit, they pay dividends, but because they invested their money back into the business, their dividends had to be paid by debt.

They didn't have to be paid by debt. They didn't have to be paid at all.

 

[Scubadog]

They didn't have to be paid by debt. They didn't have to be paid at all.

Why not?
Would you make an investment with no returns?

 

[Scubadog]

...but the free for all private system that you adore so much has almost zero benefit to UK tax payers? We get almost the same level of poor quality service but pay shareholder profits on top. Look at the trains. You would say they were rubbish in the 60's, yeah, maybe, but at least we paid peanuts and got peanuts. Now we pay gold coins and get...peanuts.

Same is happening with the NHS, privatisation just increases the cost, you don't get a better service. It's the same ambulance, the same hospital bed, the same doctor but now it costs 10 x more because everything in the hospital has a cost/profit calculation. Before, it was just a cost of saving lives and we all paid toward it with taxes because, that's the right thing to do!

The only sensible argument I'd accept is to have heavily regulated private investment in critical infrastructure. That won't happen. MPs have their own interests and investments, they won't do themselves out of personal profit!

You have to cut out the second jobs for MPs, cut out the private investments for MPs, cut out the incentive to make money on the side, anyone working in government should only work for the government.. Then get tough on the private companies that operate utilities. They can only take profit out if they've invested X amount in urgent work, shareholders get paid last. Still plenty of profit to be made but they have to actually put their money in first and it has to be utilised in full before they get their pay out.

Same with rail. Have private companies but honest to christ, make them actually talk to eachother. This nonsensical, half baked, broken transport network is ridiculous. How many different bus and train companies do we actually need? Why do they all use different systems? Why are ticket prices 3 times higher than they need to be?

Oh..here's one part of the answer:
"British taxpayers are paying for nationalised rail services in Europe, and the French, Dutch and German people would like to say thank you." https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-taxpayers-subsidising-european-train-9556521 <<< It's an old link but come on, there's about 40 different articles online at the moment.

I disagree...
My experience of privatised health care is a million times better than NHS.
It wasnt the same bed or the same hospitals. Instead it was their own hospital, own bed and delivered with an efficiency that NHS cant even imagine.

And water and sewage is nothing like it was before privatisation. Before sewage was literally screened to 10mm and that's it. Huge investments mean it is now treated properly. I know people dont recognise this, as most have never even seen a sewage works in real life. Huge sites were constructed, often without people knowing. Water companies did this quietly as they were actually marked down (and hence could charge less due to the previous way things were scored called OPA points) if they received complaints. One i was involved in was built underground.... no one even knows it exists as no one wants that in their back garden. That cost £30million 20 years ago. They didnt even have an open ceremony for residents to see where the investment went. Do you know where your sewage goes? I can guarantee if you did some research the site YOUR sewage gets treated is most likely to have received a few £10's of million of investment over the last 20 years.

 

[Newchodge]

I disagree...
My experience of privatised health care is a million times better than NHS.
It wasnt the same bed or the same hospitals. Instead it was their own hospital, own bed and delivered with an efficiency that NHS cant even imagine.

By doctors employed by the NHS and relying on th NHS to provide immediate intensive care if issues arise that the private hospital cannot deal with as they haven't invested in the necessary facilities.

 

[Scubadog]

I have

The only iffy thing here is that the gutter from my conservatory (and water butt overflow) go into a waste pipe that outfalls directly into the aforementioned culvert.

My sewage (and sink outflows) go into a Thames Water sewer which is pitch fibre pipe and likely to fail imminently. My roof gutters feed into the surface water drainage system (along with road gullies) which is totally separate (although I have no idea where it goes after the end of my street)

[This is info gleaned from conversations with the Lanes4Drains area manager from when he was sat outside my house for weeks]

Pitch fibre is a pain.
They will usually fix it with a fibreglass lining blown into the pipe using a no dig technique.

Your property and mine are the few 10% that have seperate systems. It is crazy that developers still build combined systems as thier preference. Just think of all those new homes dumping thier rainwater into the sewer system. This causes huge problems, not only hydrualic, but also biological....rainwater cannot be treated the same way as sewage as it has no food for the biomass to feed on. Water companies have been calling for a ban on new combined sewers for around 2 decades......they have no means of objecting a new development installing combined sewer and rain water systems. And we wonder why they have to discharge so much storm water when it rains?

 

[Scubadog]

By doctors employed by the NHS and relying on th NHS to provide immediate intensive care if issues arise that the private hospital cannot deal with as they haven't invested in the necessary facilities.

Actually for all my familys private treatemnts it is the other way around. The private staff were employed solely by private facilities. Many of family members are also funded and employed solely by private care providers.

But yea sure, i could have waited 6 months to be seen, then another 8 months to wait for treatment on the crappy NHS......how would that have helped anything?

The NHS costs £3bn every week.........if you want to privatise water/sewage (that requires a £600bn investment with only a <£3bn annual profit) where do you think the money would go? To the NHS or on sewers that most people have never cared about, never visited and show a complete disrespect too.

I bet most on here dump chemicals down the sewers. Either through prescription drug use or daily chemicals...none of which can be used, but all of which people now want removed. How? You haven't said!?


Everyone (YOU) wants a solution, but only if it doesnt mean they have to change their own daily habbits. Seriosuly, give an actual answer. Assume you have infinate budget....how would you resolve the problems.

 

[japancool]

Why not?
Would you make an investment with no returns?

That debt is what is going to cause the shareholders to lose part of their investment, never mind the cost of servicing that debt which reduces their profits and ergo, any potential future dividends.

So yes, they should have accepted either a significantly lower dividend. And if they weren't happy with that and weren't willing to invest, then the government could have stepped in to provide the loan facilities that they needed.

 

[IanSuth]

Pitch fibre is a pain.
They will usually fix it with a fibreglass lining blown into the pipe using a no dig technique.

Your property and mine are the few 10% that have seperate systems. It is crazy that developers still build combined systems as thier preference. Just think of all those new homes dumping thier rainwater into the sewer system. This causes huge problems, not only hydrualic, but also biological....rainwater cannot be treated the same way as sewage as it has no food for the biomass to feed on. Water companies have been calling for a ban on new combined sewers for around 2 decades......they have no means of objecting a new development installing combined sewer and rain water systems. And we wonder why they have to discharge so much storm water when it rains?

Thames Water won't line pitched fibre around here, they spend a fortune trying not to spend a penny - Lanes4drains wanted to reline or replace 10m of sewer as soon as the leak started (collapsed at bottom of hill due to vibro roller used in laying cycle path so was backing up & coming out around inspection hatch half way up hill). Thames Water insisted they try steam cleaning first - L4D said that would just dissolve the pitch fibre like paper mache but they were ordered to do it as the standard tier1 remedy, as predicted the sewer fully collapsed and the leak escalated. They were then told they had to cctv survey it - which took a fortnight to conduct and a fortnight for the footage to be reviewed and proved "yep - its totally collapsed", they then asked again about the 10m length and were told they could do 3m only.

Hence what could have been a job done in under a week took 3 months, cost a magnitude more (24x7 sewerage tanked on site must have cost a fortune) and we only have a stop gap solution as they only replaced 3m which likely cost a large % of the cost of replacing 10m. They also had to waive the sewerage part of the water rates for the 10 houses affected by the smell/disruption for the following year

That entire run of sewer was laid to solely serve a primary school which was shut in 2003 and in 2008 replaced with 80 townhouses which TW were happy to let feed into the same sewer (i was at the planning meeting when people asked if the sewers could take it and a bland reply from TW saying "no objection" was read out.

They are a useless bunch of people who know the cost of everything and value of nothing

 

[IanSuth]

a lot of Thames Waters "investment" went on shiny offices

in the 90's they worked in a couple of floors in here https://www.alamy.com/1990s-thames-water-office-building-in-reading-england-image4429302.html and in a low rise depot across town

this is the new offices https://goo.gl/maps/p18q9ZpdWwcocoKx8 on the same site - interestingly if you pan right you see Reading Bridge house - behind that is the Environment Agency's offices as you can see here https://goo.gl/maps/nt3X9EatpymJ7Sxb9, they all literally drink together after work

 

[Newchodge]

Why not?
Would you make an investment with no returns?

The 'investment' in most cases does not invest in the company, shares are bought and sold without the company making any gain. The investors are merely gamblers hoping to make a profit. Why should profits be made from public service monopolies?

 

[Scubadog]

That debt is what is going to cause the shareholders to lose part of their investment, never mind the cost of servicing that debt which reduces their profits and ergo, any potential future dividends.

So yes, they should have accepted either a significantly lower dividend. And if they weren't happy with that and weren't willing to invest, then the government could have stepped in to provide the loan facilities that they needed.

They made a profit they were entitled to a dividend.

They could have taken it....but there would have been no money left to pay for the capital investments.

so they funded both the investments and dividend by debt.

If they didn't, there wouldn't have been any money for investments everyone asked for.

What you are asking for is someone else to pay for the investment, at their cost, with no return to their investment.

Thames Water won't line pitched fibre around here, they spend a fortune trying not to spend a penny - Lanes4drains wanted to reline or replace 10m of sewer as soon as the leak started (collapsed at bottom of hill due to vibro roller used in laying cycle path so was backing up & coming out around inspection hatch half way up hill). Thames Water insisted they try steam cleaning first - L4D said that would just dissolve the pitch fibre like paper mache but they were ordered to do it as the standard tier1 remedy, as predicted the sewer fully collapsed and the leak escalated. They were then told they had to cctv survey it - which took a fortnight to conduct and a fortnight for the footage to be reviewed and proved "yep - its totally collapsed", they then asked again about the 10m length and were told they could do 3m only.

Hence what could have been a job done in under a week took 3 months, cost a magnitude more (24x7 sewerage tanked on site must have cost a fortune) and we only have a stop gap solution as they only replaced 3m which likely cost a large % of the cost of replacing 10m. They also had to waive the sewerage part of the water rates for the 10 houses affected by the smell/disruption for the following year

That entire run of sewer was laid to solely serve a primary school which was shut in 2003 and in 2008 replaced with 80 townhouses which TW were happy to let feed into the same sewer (i was at the planning meeting when people asked if the sewers could take it and a bland reply from TW saying "no objection" was read out.

They are a useless bunch of people who know the cost of everything and value of nothing

They wouldn't have been "happy" to allow it. They are required to accept it.....thats the rules placed upon them. They have bo grounds or right to object or insist on anything being upgraded as part of a development

But I agree...Thames are crap. Only worse than welshbwater....a government owned not for profit

That debt is what is going to cause the shareholders to lose part of their investment, never mind the cost of servicing that debt which reduces their profits and ergo, any potential future dividends.

So yes, they should have accepted either a significantly lower dividend. And if they weren't happy with that and weren't willing to invest, then the government could have stepped in to provide the loan facilities that they needed.

Isn't a government load simply more debt?

Just look at Welsh water.....government owned jot for profit. Leaden with debt and in the worst three in the uk.

The 'investment' in most cases does not invest in the company, shares are bought and sold without the company making any gain. The investors are merely gamblers hoping to make a profit. Why should profits be made from public service monopolies?

Because the shareholders are the ones who stump up the capital to pay for things you want whilst they wait for a return on your really cheap monthly payments.

You do like to doge questions....
Go on.. try answering one.

What would you do differently?

Explain why you think the two government owned water companies perform worst than most privately owned ones....