johnny crossan
Well-Known Member
A few new Hattersleys and Brinningtons being planned no doubt - sink estates are a Labour speciality.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Labour Government
- Thread starter SkyBlueFlux
- Start date
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
That would be huge news if true.Being reported that the renationalisation of the rail companies will be announced in the King's Speech. I assume this means that contracts won't be renewed when they expire.
Water companies next, please.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 14,825
The regulation on water companies by Ofwat has been nothing short of shambolic, they have allowed investors to run up huge leveraged loans against assets, alot of which was used to pay dividends to holding companies and not used for investment. Scandalous. Hopefully the new government will instruct Ofwat to not allow Thames Water to increase customers bills and then the private investors will have to contribute more investment. Or the company fails and at that point the company can come back into national ownership at no cost to the tax payer.Being reported that the renationalisation of the rail companies will be announced in the King's Speech. I assume this means that contracts won't be renewed when they expire.
Water companies next, please.
Also going forwards the companies should be fined for single polution events just like any other industry. This will need to be phased in.
Eccles Blue
Well-Known Member
I am clicking like there @Churchlawtonblue but thinking about it, with the water pollution why phase it in. Fine the lot of them now, that's our lives and our children's lives they are putting at risk, not to mention the nature infrastructure as well. JMHO :-) So make them buck themselves up and sort it out without messing about. :-)The regulation on water companies by Ofwat has been nothing short of shambolic, they have allowed investors to run up huge leveraged loans against assets, alot of which was used to pay dividends to holding companies and not used for investment. Scandalous. Hopefully the new government will instruct Ofwat to not allow Thames Water to increase customers bills and then the private investors will have to contribute more investment. Or the company fails and at that point the company can come back into national ownership at no cost to the tax payer.
Also going forwards the companies should be fined for single polution events just like any other industry. This will need to be phased in.
metalblue
Well-Known Member
It was 7940 3 months ago. It had a brief rise to 8400 2 months ago but the general trend has been up since it became clear that the country was going to see sense.
There is an ounce of truth in what you say. We have a less political uncertainty now - Sunak was facing a rising call for a vote of no confidence in the days leading up to calling an election. Markets don’t like uncertainty.
It’s just a little bit though in the overall scheme of things. UK indices have long underperformed other global indices, primarily as it’s so weighted to resources rather than booming stocks in luxury goods, AI, and the obsession with anti obesity drugs.
These have started to drop off now and the UK shares look good value particularly against a back drop of better economic data that show us returning to growth. The UK economy has proven resilient and so long as that can be sustained it’s fair to consider the UK stocks might be entering a period of rises.
Certainly nothing negative in the UK being under new management but it’s not all down to that fact. Not at all.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 14,825
Because in no particular order, some of the companies won't be able to sustain the fines and will collapse financially, in many instances massive investment in infrastrature will be needed to avoid the pollution events.I am clicking like there @Churchlawtonblue but thinking about it, with the water pollution why phase it in. Fine the lot of them now, that's our lives and our children's lives they are putting at risk, not to mention the nature infrastructure as well. JMHO :-) So make them buck themselves up and sort it out without messing about. :-)
Unsurprisingly there currently isn't the Environment Agency staff to police these events.
Legislation will possibly need to be changed as many of these companies have loop holes in discharge consents therefore allowing them to legally pollute.
I think it's fair that in any industry you give warning of changes and ramp up the requirements and allow the industry to change and invest appropriately, tied in with bringing in fines, so far this hasn't happened anywhere on the scale needed.
If you move the goal posts too quickly and the companies fold then its likely the taxpayer will just be picking up the fines.
Eccles Blue
Well-Known Member
Thank you, I'm afraid as I get older I get more impatient to have these sort of wrongs put right. Sorry. Patience is a virtue...... one I'm afraid I have lost over the years. :-)Because in no particular order, some of the companies won't be able to sustain the fines and will collapse financially, in many instances massive investment in infrastrature will be needed to avoid the pollution events.
Unsurprisingly there currently isn't the Environment Agency staff to police these events.
Legislation will possibly need to be changed as many of these companies have loop holes in discharge consents therefore allowing them to legally pollute.
I think it's fair that in any industry you give warning of changes and ramp up the requirements and allow the industry to change and invest appropriately, tied in with bringing in fines, so far this hasn't happened anywhere on the scale needed.
If you move the goal posts too quickly and the companies fold then its likely the taxpayer will just be picking up the fines.
I totally understand your explanation and accept it wholeheartedly. Thanks. :-)
OK, I give up.There you go deflecting again, your post was a we need more people because of the increasing number of elderly people as a % in our society. It's been mentioned a million times so you ain't teaching anyone anything.
Wrapping it up in a long winded post with a link doesn't change that. If you can give me an answer to the obvious flaw in an ever growing population that damages the home we all live in but don't own please do it would be very comforting.
I had enough of we need people to serve us at Pret a decade ago tbh.
You are getting sillier than Mexico.
hilts
Well-Known Member
Sure sure that's the reason:-)OK, I give up.
You are getting sillier than Mexico.
jazzy
Well-Known Member
Local authorities built the council estates not private house builders. Most house builders stay away from social housing as the profit margins are too thin , but will sell to housing associations if offered full market value either off plan or on completionWhy would it not be social housing? The government does not build social houses, housebuilders do.
If the government wants more social housing then they'll get a housebuilder to build the houses, they'll pay the housebuilder for the house and the council/housing associations take over management of the stock.
The biggest obstacle to this is land values, especially in the south. A 2-bed terrace can go for £500k near London, if even 100,000 minimum council houses are built near London then that's £50bn gone already...