give it to gordon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2013
- Messages
- 16,905
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Another nice sunny day in Kent and yet another beach you cant swim at
Thames water
- Thread starter Nellies left peg
- Start date
The Chief Executive post at Ofwat, the regulator to these cowboys was advertised at between £145,000 and £163,900 per year. Perhaps we should be asking what this bloke does all day because he certainly doesn't do his job.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
why? What business is it of ours? If we are happy to pay JRM £80k + expenses to be an MP a job which he interprets means going to church and a test match and not attending the house then its clear that the British people have been gaslit into thinking high pay is the result of hard work and dedication not epic laziness
give it to gordon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2013
- Messages
- 16,905
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Another week
Nethermoor
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2019
- Messages
- 1,220
- Team supported
- Guiseley
I hate the water companies more than the energy company
They fuck us about every year with water shortages, but we pay for the privilege.
I refuse to comply with hosepipe bans. We're surrounded by water you twats
They fuck us about every year with water shortages, but we pay for the privilege.
I refuse to comply with hosepipe bans. We're surrounded by water you twats
give it to gordon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2013
- Messages
- 16,905
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Just over 4 hours of stead rain and the system cant cope. Pathetic
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
From Wiki - just confirms the Water Co's privatisation his been a massive scam
By 1980, investment in the water sector was just one-third of what it had been in 1970. Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government, which had been elected in 1979, had curtailed the RWAs' ability to borrow money they deemed necessary for capital projects.[8][9][11] Daniel Okun said: "Before, they could borrow money everywhere easily. They could get money at very good rates. Restrictions on external borrowing prevented the [RWAs] from getting capital. They were considered ineffective because they could not borrow money. Thatcher prevented them from borrowing and then blamed them for not building."[9] When the European Union introduced stricter legislation on river, bathing, coastal, and drinking water quality, the sector was in no position to meet the expenditure requirements and the UK was prosecuted for noncompliance.[12]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatisation_in_England_and_Wales#cite_note-15 Estimates of the capital expenditure required to achieve EU standards and meet the existing backlog in infrastructure maintenance ranged from £24 to £30 billion.
The Conservative government of the day had originally proposed water privatisation in 1984 and again in 1986, but strong public feeling against the proposals led to plans being shelved to prevent the issue influencing the 1987 general election.[15][16] Having won the election, the privatisation plan was "resurrected and implemented rapidly."[6]
The newly created, privately owned, water and sewerage companies (WSCs) paid £7.6 billion for the regional water authorities. At the same time, the government assumed responsibility for the sector's total debts amounting to £5 billion and granted the WSCs a further £1.5 billion—a so-called "green dowry"—of public funds
The idea sold to the country was that privatisation would bring competition and that in turn would boost economic performance, make the services more efficient and ultimately cheaper.
By 1980, investment in the water sector was just one-third of what it had been in 1970. Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government, which had been elected in 1979, had curtailed the RWAs' ability to borrow money they deemed necessary for capital projects.[8][9][11] Daniel Okun said: "Before, they could borrow money everywhere easily. They could get money at very good rates. Restrictions on external borrowing prevented the [RWAs] from getting capital. They were considered ineffective because they could not borrow money. Thatcher prevented them from borrowing and then blamed them for not building."[9] When the European Union introduced stricter legislation on river, bathing, coastal, and drinking water quality, the sector was in no position to meet the expenditure requirements and the UK was prosecuted for noncompliance.[12]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatisation_in_England_and_Wales#cite_note-15 Estimates of the capital expenditure required to achieve EU standards and meet the existing backlog in infrastructure maintenance ranged from £24 to £30 billion.
The Conservative government of the day had originally proposed water privatisation in 1984 and again in 1986, but strong public feeling against the proposals led to plans being shelved to prevent the issue influencing the 1987 general election.[15][16] Having won the election, the privatisation plan was "resurrected and implemented rapidly."[6]
The newly created, privately owned, water and sewerage companies (WSCs) paid £7.6 billion for the regional water authorities. At the same time, the government assumed responsibility for the sector's total debts amounting to £5 billion and granted the WSCs a further £1.5 billion—a so-called "green dowry"—of public funds
The idea sold to the country was that privatisation would bring competition and that in turn would boost economic performance, make the services more efficient and ultimately cheaper.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 14,170
Thames Water says it can't pay back £190m loan
Thames Water boss tells MPs it doesn't have enough money to pay back a loan due in April next year.
www.bbc.com
Looks like they want another bail put or they go into administration. What I don't understand is why the tax payer would be required to bail them out of they went bust. Surely if that occurs then the administrators ask for bids for what's left of the company. And then the UK government could if it wanted step in and make a bid. But I don't see how or why it would have to underwrite the loans made previously by the Private investors and holding company. They would just lose out.