FabSwingers.com
 

FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > What's the problem with public ownership

What's the problem with public ownership

Jump to: Newest in thread

 

By (user no longer on site) OP    14 weeks ago

30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site) 14 weeks ago

The real question is WHO is saying there's a problem with public ownership.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site) OP    14 weeks ago


"The real question is WHO is saying there's a problem with public ownership."

Ah yes there's that too

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *idnight RamblerMan 14 weeks ago

Pershore

Well there was a time when the state own the mines, ports, railways, steelmaking, automotive, trains, telecoms, gas, water ..... Without exception they were an unmitigated disaster.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site) OP    14 weeks ago

[Removed by poster at 30/07/24 15:32:23]

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By (user no longer on site) OP    14 weeks ago


"Well there was a time when the state own the mines, ports, railways, steelmaking, automotive, trains, telecoms, gas, water ..... Without exception they were an unmitigated disaster."

How and why? isn't the water companies and rail not in a complete mess?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *atEvolutionCouple 14 weeks ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

We should Nationalise the Government so that it belongs to us, not the politicians.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *verageSausageMan 14 weeks ago

Flintshire

The problems are in the small print.

For instance, railway companies, bus companies, electricity companies and water companies were often established in Victorian times as independent companies.

Due to the "profiteering and cost cutting", these companies were gradually nationalised as they failed to serve the public.

Once nationalised, cost cutting eventually took hold (such as the Beeching cuts) and the nationalised institutions suffered from corruption.

So, they were privatised.

And then the vicious circle began once again.

You do know that much of the railways in Britain has already been "nationalised"? And the banks? Banks have gone through similar vicious circles. (eg Northern Rock).

Nothing will change in the long term.

The new nationalised entities will require high level managers and administrators who fully understand the market conditions.

These jobs will doubtless go to the current directors and higher managers.

And the same vicious circle will begin once again.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ostindreamsMan 14 weeks ago

London

The problem is not private ownership. It's monopoly. When you have public service for something that's run by the government, it's de-facto monopoly. You won't see the losses going on in those services because they go through your taxes and hence the losses aren't usually accounted for.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *idnight RamblerMan 14 weeks ago

Pershore


"Well there was a time when the state own the mines, ports, railways, steelmaking, automotive, trains, telecoms, gas, water ..... Without exception they were an unmitigated disaster.

How and why? isn't the water companies and rail not in a complete mess?"

Before privatisation, potable UK water quality barely met min. standards for human consumption. The UK is now in the top 10 countries in the world for water quality. Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *izandpaulCouple 14 weeks ago

merseyside


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?"

You will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders.

Unless there was some way of offering existing shareholders some kind of guaranteed dividend, initial value and growth.

Maybe something like NS&I, or capital gains exemption if shares held for a period of time.

In reality, it would never happen as there is absolutely no guarantee after finding the billions needed to buy out investors a state ownership would be any better.

Like lots of things, makes a great soundbite.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *abioMan 14 weeks ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

With regards to the railways, it has basically been nationalised in all but name since the beginning of COVID … the contracts that TOCs now have are fixed fees where the government pays them to run services

Even before COVID there were parts of the railway that were profitable (for example, the east coast main line) but the then government got greedy and backfired

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *melie LALWoman 14 weeks ago

Peterborough


"Well there was a time when the state own the mines, ports, railways, steelmaking, automotive, trains, telecoms, gas, water ..... Without exception they were an unmitigated disaster.

How and why? isn't the water companies and rail not in a complete mess?

Before privatisation, potable UK water quality barely met min. standards for human consumption. The UK is now in the top 10 countries in the world for water quality. Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change."

Actually it's largely down to poo, wee, sanitary towels

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *melie LALWoman 14 weeks ago

Peterborough

Water should never have left state ownership. Utilities like gas, electricity, telephone, broadband, tv, all have competition. With water we're stuck with companies according to location.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan 14 weeks ago

Gilfach


"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change."

It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows.

Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *roadShoulderzMan 14 weeks ago

Petersfield


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?

I thought the figure is £53bn, not £30bn.

You will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders.

Why? When Thames Water goes bust, why should shareholders get anything? They don't when other companies go bust, they are wiped out.

"

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *irldnCouple 14 weeks ago

Brighton


"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change.

It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows.

Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden."

I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan 14 weeks ago

Gilfach


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?"


"You will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders."


"Why? When Thames Water goes bust, why should shareholders get anything? They don't when other companies go bust, they are wiped out."

If you're going to treat them like any other company, the liquidators will sell off all the assets to gain as much for the shareholders as possible. Good luck keeping the taps working after all the infrastructure gets sold off.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *roadShoulderzMan 14 weeks ago

Petersfield


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?

You will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders.

Why? When Thames Water goes bust, why should shareholders get anything? They don't when other companies go bust, they are wiped out.

If you're going to treat them like any other company, the liquidators will sell off all the assets to gain as much for the shareholders as possible. Good luck keeping the taps working after all the infrastructure gets sold off."

If the liabilities exceed the asset value the shareholders get zero. When Thames Water fails the government will take control and keep the taps on. The current shareholders were fools buying into TW after Macquarie had asset stripped it and loaded it with debt. Thatcher sold the water companies debt free, and in the last 14 years the Tories let the likes of Macquarie steal billions right under their noses.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan 14 weeks ago

Gilfach


"You will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders."


"Why? When Thames Water goes bust, why should shareholders get anything? They don't when other companies go bust, they are wiped out."


"If you're going to treat them like any other company, the liquidators will sell off all the assets to gain as much for the shareholders as possible. Good luck keeping the taps working after all the infrastructure gets sold off."


"If the liabilities exceed the asset value the shareholders get zero."

And if the liabilities don't exceed the asset value, the shareholders get something.


"When Thames Water fails the government will take control and keep the taps on."

Ah, so the answer to your earlier question then is that we will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders because we're not going to give them the chance to sell off the assets to get their money back.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *idnight RamblerMan 14 weeks ago

Pershore


"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change.

It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows.

Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden.

I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell."

I agree. River and sea water quality in 2024 is appalling. But honestly speaking, who's fault is it? I was in a major supermarket yesterday, and there are 4 aisles given over entirely to cleaning chemicals, detergents, polishes, dishwasher salts ....etc. That stuff is all soluble and no treatment works can remove it. So into our rivers and seas it passes.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ostindreamsMan 14 weeks ago

London


"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change.

It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows.

Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden.

I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell."

Curious, how exactly was sewage treated before this of this is a new phenomenon?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *idnight RamblerMan 14 weeks ago

Pershore


"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change.

It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows.

Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden."

Sewage flows work on the principle of hydraulics. These have changes as climate change has brought 20% more rainfall. Sewage composition itself has changed too - far more chemicals, drugs, detergents, salts, sugars.....you name it.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *irldnCouple 14 weeks ago

Brighton


"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change.

It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows.

Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden.

I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell.

Curious, how exactly was sewage treated before this of this is a new phenomenon?"

No idea but are you denying things have got worse?

Have a look at how the number of blue flag beaches in the UK has reduced

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *idnight RamblerMan 14 weeks ago

Pershore


"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change.

It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows.

Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden.

I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell.

Curious, how exactly was sewage treated before this of this is a new phenomenon?"

By single stage primary filtration in sand beds, removing mostly faecal solids. Now sewage has up to three stage filtration AND digestion. But the composition of sewage has changed significantly. Nowadays it contains far more soluble elements that no filtration process can remove.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *eroy1000Man 14 weeks ago

milton keynes


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?"

If the water companies are nationalised then does the government get the 30 billion? Is that guaranteed given its a monopoly or will it have to pay out to fix the equipment and end up making a loss. If a loss who pays?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *roadShoulderzMan 14 weeks ago

Petersfield


"You will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders.

Why? When Thames Water goes bust, why should shareholders get anything? They don't when other companies go bust, they are wiped out.

If you're going to treat them like any other company, the liquidators will sell off all the assets to gain as much for the shareholders as possible. Good luck keeping the taps working after all the infrastructure gets sold off.

If the liabilities exceed the asset value the shareholders get zero.

And if the liabilities don't exceed the asset value, the shareholders get something.

When Thames Water fails the government will take control and keep the taps on.

Ah, so the answer to your earlier question then is that we will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders because we're not going to give them the chance to sell off the assets to get their money back."

I see your point but TW has been trying to find the required investment from existing shareholders and presumably new ones. They have plenty of time to achieve. This. If they fail then my argument is TW is worthless, effectively bankrupt and as it's a regulated business the government would step in but not need to give the shareholders a penny.

There will be a huge outcry if the government has to take over the debt and pay off the shareholders.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *eroy1000Man 14 weeks ago

milton keynes


"You will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders.

Why? When Thames Water goes bust, why should shareholders get anything? They don't when other companies go bust, they are wiped out.

If you're going to treat them like any other company, the liquidators will sell off all the assets to gain as much for the shareholders as possible. Good luck keeping the taps working after all the infrastructure gets sold off.

If the liabilities exceed the asset value the shareholders get zero.

And if the liabilities don't exceed the asset value, the shareholders get something.

When Thames Water fails the government will take control and keep the taps on.

Ah, so the answer to your earlier question then is that we will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders because we're not going to give them the chance to sell off the assets to get their money back.

I see your point but TW has been trying to find the required investment from existing shareholders and presumably new ones. They have plenty of time to achieve. This. If they fail then my argument is TW is worthless, effectively bankrupt and as it's a regulated business the government would step in but not need to give the shareholders a penny.

There will be a huge outcry if the government has to take over the debt and pay off the shareholders."

I have no idea of how it works when companies go bust but from your post you say TW have failed to get the investment from shareholders. I presume the investment is for upgrades and repairs. If correct and the government do take over, who then pays for the upgrades and repairs that the shareholders refused to fund. As I say just a presumption on my part

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *izandpaulCouple 14 weeks ago

merseyside


"You will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders.

Why? When Thames Water goes bust, why should shareholders get anything? They don't when other companies go bust, they are wiped out.

If you're going to treat them like any other company, the liquidators will sell off all the assets to gain as much for the shareholders as possible. Good luck keeping the taps working after all the infrastructure gets sold off.

If the liabilities exceed the asset value the shareholders get zero.

And if the liabilities don't exceed the asset value, the shareholders get something.

When Thames Water fails the government will take control and keep the taps on.

Ah, so the answer to your earlier question then is that we will have to find the cash to buy out the existing shareholders because we're not going to give them the chance to sell off the assets to get their money back.

I see your point but TW has been trying to find the required investment from existing shareholders and presumably new ones. They have plenty of time to achieve. This. If they fail then my argument is TW is worthless, effectively bankrupt and as it's a regulated business the government would step in but not need to give the shareholders a penny.

There will be a huge outcry if the government has to take over the debt and pay off the shareholders.

I have no idea of how it works when companies go bust but from your post you say TW have failed to get the investment from shareholders. I presume the investment is for upgrades and repairs. If correct and the government do take over, who then pays for the upgrades and repairs that the shareholders refused to fund. As I say just a presumption on my part"

When a company goes bust an administrator of some form or other, generally a specialist accountancy company with vast experience of either selling the company as a whole, preferable to save the jobs, or stripping the assets to pay, mainly the

preferential creditors and then to ordinary shareholders.

In many cases the preferential shareholders get the lions share and folks holding ordinary shares either get nothing or so many pennies in the pound.

If a water company goes bust, or any other company, I can't see any reason why the liquidator cannot value the assets and accept a offer from the government to take over.

Some assets do have a large residual value but can't be stripped away from the parental asset without a major devaluation of the whole.

Recent goverments have been very reluctant to take over a company and return to state ownership.

It's a great soundbite but far more difficult to achieve in reality.

In theory, all the profits generated should then go into the public purse, in practice the incoming owners would need a bottomless pit of cash to cover years of poor investment in infrastructure and any profits made would more than likely go into a general public purse, be used for all government spending and you will have a state run business just as bad as one held by private shareholders.

Don't think there is an easy answer, maybe just more government oversight in strategic service companies.

Don't hold your breath.

I do take your point about letting a company go bust, all shares are then worthless and HMG can steam in a pick it up for free but it just doesn't work like that.

Let's see what happens with this new government.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *mmmMaybeCouple 14 weeks ago

West Wales


"Well there was a time when the state own the mines, ports, railways, steelmaking, automotive, trains, telecoms, gas, water ..... Without exception they were an unmitigated disaster."

A disaster because profits were taken & used elsewhere by succesive governments instead of them being a disaster because profits are taken by shareholders & obscene CEO bonuses you mean.

Still prefer the public disaster tbh.

S

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *roadShoulderzMan 14 weeks ago

Petersfield

It seems to me that the previous owners of TW took out excessive amounts of money from the business and have also setup an extremely complicated ownership structure all under the supposed watchful eye of the regular Ofwat. This is despite TW being a monopoly and a pretty safe investment.

The reasons given by "the City" not to nationalise TW without compensation is that it will put off future foreign investors.

An awful lot of our vital infrastructure is now foreign owned including by the Chinese.

Profits go abroad and are not spent in the UK. However badly nationalised industries were run, most of the money stayed in the UK, perhaps paid to lazy workers but largely spent here.

The Tories have presided over a culture of privatising profits and socialising losses. We are all going to pay very dearly for the previous 14 years of gross financial mismanagement.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ostindreamsMan 14 weeks ago

London


"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change.

It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows.

Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden.

I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell.

Curious, how exactly was sewage treated before this of this is a new phenomenon?

No idea but are you denying things have got worse?

Have a look at how the number of blue flag beaches in the UK has reduced "

Not denying. I am genuinely curious. Never been a beach person even though I grew up in a coastal town in India. Hardly been to a beach in the UK.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ostindreamsMan 14 weeks ago

London


"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change.

It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows.

Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden.

I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell.

Curious, how exactly was sewage treated before this of this is a new phenomenon?

By single stage primary filtration in sand beds, removing mostly faecal solids. Now sewage has up to three stage filtration AND digestion. But the composition of sewage has changed significantly. Nowadays it contains far more soluble elements that no filtration process can remove. "

That makes sense. So our consumption model has changed in a way that makes treatment much harder.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *idnight RamblerMan 14 weeks ago

Pershore


"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change.

It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows.

Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden.

I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell.

Curious, how exactly was sewage treated before this of this is a new phenomenon?

By single stage primary filtration in sand beds, removing mostly faecal solids. Now sewage has up to three stage filtration AND digestion. But the composition of sewage has changed significantly. Nowadays it contains far more soluble elements that no filtration process can remove.

That makes sense. So our consumption model has changed in a way that makes treatment much harder."

Exactly that. We are flushing a highly toxic cocktail of chemicals & drugs down sewers that didn't exist a few decades ago.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *irldnCouple 14 weeks ago

Brighton


"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change.

It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows.

Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden.

I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell.

Curious, how exactly was sewage treated before this of this is a new phenomenon?

By single stage primary filtration in sand beds, removing mostly faecal solids. Now sewage has up to three stage filtration AND digestion. But the composition of sewage has changed significantly. Nowadays it contains far more soluble elements that no filtration process can remove.

That makes sense. So our consumption model has changed in a way that makes treatment much harder.

Exactly that. We are flushing a highly toxic cocktail of chemicals & drugs down sewers that didn't exist a few decades ago."

Are you suggesting our highly experienced and efficient private sector water companies have not kept up with an evolving situation that impacts their business and have not been investing and innovating to be able to handle things? Sounds negligent and badly managed to me!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *lfasoCouple 14 weeks ago

South East

I thought I saw someone swimming in the sea today, but they were just going through the motions.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ill69888Couple 14 weeks ago

cheltenham


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?"

most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *irldnCouple 14 weeks ago

Brighton


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money."

Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ostindreamsMan 14 weeks ago

London


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money.

Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that?"

Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ostindreamsMan 14 weeks ago

London


"Yes, sewage is an issue in 2024, but that's largely down to climate change.

It's not. It's an issue because people can see it. 15 years ago there was no measurement of storm water sewage overflows. Since then, monitors have been installed, and last year for the first time there were monitors on 100% of outflows.

Sewage is only becoming an issue because now people know about it, where previously it was hidden.

I don’t agree. We’ve had this convo before. Sea swimming off south coast for years but not these days. You don’t need monitors, you can see the colour of the water and sometimes even the smell.

Curious, how exactly was sewage treated before this of this is a new phenomenon?

By single stage primary filtration in sand beds, removing mostly faecal solids. Now sewage has up to three stage filtration AND digestion. But the composition of sewage has changed significantly. Nowadays it contains far more soluble elements that no filtration process can remove.

That makes sense. So our consumption model has changed in a way that makes treatment much harder.

Exactly that. We are flushing a highly toxic cocktail of chemicals & drugs down sewers that didn't exist a few decades ago.

Are you suggesting our highly experienced and efficient private sector water companies have not kept up with an evolving situation that impacts their business and have not been investing and innovating to be able to handle things? Sounds negligent and badly managed to me! "

Has a lot to do with it being a monopoly. Do you think public ownership will magically fix it? Because that's a monopoly too.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *irldnCouple 14 weeks ago

Brighton


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money.

Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that?

Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run?"

I’ll let the other poster back up their claim first thanks

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *izandpaulCouple 14 weeks ago

merseyside


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money.

Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that?"

Quite right, it's all super efficient and world beating.

Let's go through a few.

DWP - Brilliant

Immigration - Brilliant

Asylum - More than Brilliant

NHS - BRILLIANT - Must true I work for them

Dept. for Pot Holes - None exist so Brilliant.

Dept. for Rural Affairs - Fuck knows.

Foreign Office - Brilliant, the world looks up to us and is very scared.

Paul met a FCO married couple at a drinks do where oil industry people attended. It was a great night, he was a snob with cheap shoes and she got totally pissed and made a complete twat of herself. - Brilliant.

I looked around an RNLI station and foolishly said, is this all voluntary funded or are you run by government.

The guy nearly fainted and said could you imagine the RNLI run by civil servants, I should know, he said, I work for the civil service.

This is not a poke at the many hard working civil servants but just a few.....

Does private industry have all the answers, certainly not, but as an NHS employee I do love to compare the way we operate to they way the oil and gas company Paul works for.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *idnight RamblerMan 14 weeks ago

Pershore


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money.

Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that?

Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run?"

Nope! But it's hardly surprising is it? Politicians rarely have business experience. Most come from Uni via party researchers to MPs. I doubt the vast majority could read and understand a P&L account and Balance Sheet. So how can they run businesses better than business professionals? It's like assuming they'd be better surgeons.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple 14 weeks ago

Bournemouth


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money.

Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that?

Quite right, it's all super efficient and world beating.

Let's go through a few.

DWP - Brilliant

Immigration - Brilliant

Asylum - More than Brilliant

NHS - BRILLIANT - Must true I work for them

Dept. for Pot Holes - None exist so Brilliant.

Dept. for Rural Affairs - Fuck knows.

Foreign Office - Brilliant, the world looks up to us and is very scared.

Paul met a FCO married couple at a drinks do where oil industry people attended. It was a great night, he was a snob with cheap shoes and she got totally pissed and made a complete twat of herself. - Brilliant.

I looked around an RNLI station and foolishly said, is this all voluntary funded or are you run by government.

The guy nearly fainted and said could you imagine the RNLI run by civil servants, I should know, he said, I work for the civil service.

This is not a poke at the many hard working civil servants but just a few.....

Does private industry have all the answers, certainly not, but as an NHS employee I do love to compare the way we operate to they way the oil and gas company Paul works for.

"

Don't ever let people know either of you work for the oil & gas industry, you'll have them baying for blood

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *irldnCouple 14 weeks ago

Brighton


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money.

Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that?

Quite right, it's all super efficient and world beating.

Let's go through a few.

DWP - Brilliant

Immigration - Brilliant

Asylum - More than Brilliant

NHS - BRILLIANT - Must true I work for them

Dept. for Pot Holes - None exist so Brilliant.

Dept. for Rural Affairs - Fuck knows.

Foreign Office - Brilliant, the world looks up to us and is very scared.

Paul met a FCO married couple at a drinks do where oil industry people attended. It was a great night, he was a snob with cheap shoes and she got totally pissed and made a complete twat of herself. - Brilliant.

I looked around an RNLI station and foolishly said, is this all voluntary funded or are you run by government.

The guy nearly fainted and said could you imagine the RNLI run by civil servants, I should know, he said, I work for the civil service.

This is not a poke at the many hard working civil servants but just a few.....

Does private industry have all the answers, certainly not, but as an NHS employee I do love to compare the way we operate to they way the oil and gas company Paul works for.

"

Lol fair enough

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *izandpaulCouple 14 weeks ago

merseyside


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money.

Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that?

Quite right, it's all super efficient and world beating.

Let's go through a few.

DWP - Brilliant

Immigration - Brilliant

Asylum - More than Brilliant

NHS - BRILLIANT - Must true I work for them

Dept. for Pot Holes - None exist so Brilliant.

Dept. for Rural Affairs - Fuck knows.

Foreign Office - Brilliant, the world looks up to us and is very scared.

Paul met a FCO married couple at a drinks do where oil industry people attended. It was a great night, he was a snob with cheap shoes and she got totally pissed and made a complete twat of herself. - Brilliant.

I looked around an RNLI station and foolishly said, is this all voluntary funded or are you run by government.

The guy nearly fainted and said could you imagine the RNLI run by civil servants, I should know, he said, I work for the civil service.

This is not a poke at the many hard working civil servants but just a few.....

Does private industry have all the answers, certainly not, but as an NHS employee I do love to compare the way we operate to they way the oil and gas company Paul works for.

Don't ever let people know either of you work for the oil & gas industry, you'll have them baying for blood "

Haha.

He's used to it.

Flying back home a lady sitting next to him asked what he did for a living, he told her, she then basically accused him, single handedly, of being responsible for all pollution and any bonus he received should be immediately handed back or given to charity.

Obviously, she accepted all the drinks he bought her, was happy herself to take holiday flights but still thought Paul was at fault.

He tried to sleep but she kept poking him when she wanted to discuss another pearl of wisdom.

Don't you just love em.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *roadShoulderzMan 14 weeks ago

Petersfield


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money.

Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that?

Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run?"

Let's start with the Crown Estate. Owned by the Scottish and UK government. Seems pretty successful to me.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *astandFeistyCouple 14 weeks ago

Bournemouth


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money.

Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that?

Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run?

Let's start with the Crown Estate. Owned by the Scottish and UK government. Seems pretty successful to me."

The Crown Estate is not owned nor run by Government.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *ostindreamsMan 14 weeks ago

London


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money.

Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that?

Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run?

Nope! But it's hardly surprising is it? Politicians rarely have business experience. Most come from Uni via party researchers to MPs. I doubt the vast majority could read and understand a P&L account and Balance Sheet. So how can they run businesses better than business professionals? It's like assuming they'd be better surgeons."

And they have no incentive to do well. For someone running a business, they have to do it well or they will be out of the market. For governments, they will stay in market no matter how matter how badly they do. You can always pump more tax money into it. Elections happen once every five years anyway.

Not to mention their poor ability to react to supply shortages.

But no matter how ridiculously it fails, people keep thinking someone would magically fix public sector one day.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *roadShoulderzMan 14 weeks ago

Petersfield


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money.

Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that?

Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run?

Let's start with the Crown Estate. Owned by the Scottish and UK government. Seems pretty successful to me.

The Crown Estate is not owned nor run by Government. "

Its ownership may be a mute point but the Government appoints the Board of Directors so it is Goverment run and very successful.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *irldnCouple 14 weeks ago

Brighton


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money.

Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that?

Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run?

Let's start with the Crown Estate. Owned by the Scottish and UK government. Seems pretty successful to me.

The Crown Estate is not owned nor run by Government.

Its ownership may be a mute point but the Government appoints the Board of Directors so it is Goverment run and very successful."

Interestingly one of the big tenants paying rent to The Crown Estate is… the Government

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *eroy1000Man 14 weeks ago

milton keynes


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money.

Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that?

Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run?

Let's start with the Crown Estate. Owned by the Scottish and UK government. Seems pretty successful to me.

The Crown Estate is not owned nor run by Government.

Its ownership may be a mute point but the Government appoints the Board of Directors so it is Goverment run and very successful."

It's not a government asset so ownership is not moot. According to the crown estate web site, the chancellor puts forward recommendations on the commissioner but it is the monarch that makes the appointment. They go on to say that the estate is run and managed totally independent from the government.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

 

By *eroy1000Man 14 weeks ago

milton keynes


"30 billion in profits want to shareholders for water companies

If that's the case it would be better if in the public purse and would go into infrastructure rather tha shareholders bank accounts?most areas of the public sector are badly mismanaged and become bottomless pits for taxpayers money.

Are they? Most? As in more than are not? You know this for sure? Some most certainly are but most? Really? How do you know that?

Can you show anything run by public sector that is so well run?

Let's start with the Crown Estate. Owned by the Scottish and UK government. Seems pretty successful to me.

The Crown Estate is not owned nor run by Government.

Its ownership may be a mute point but the Government appoints the Board of Directors so it is Goverment run and very successful.

Interestingly one of the big tenants paying rent to The Crown Estate is… the Government "

Yes I suspect they will be the biggest of all tenants and apparently the increase in green energy projects, will increase the crown estate income greatly.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

  

By *imited 3EditionCouple 14 weeks ago

Live in Scotland Play in England


"We should Nationalise the Government so that it belongs to us, not the politicians. "

This!!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

» Add a new message to this topic

0.1092

0