All this preamble is very relevant in the context of water companies.

would be whether those shareholders should be due any compensation if the companies in question were to be taken back into national ownership?
In addition, if, as is very likely, that replacement infrastructure is considerably more efficient than the Victorian system that it will replace, including with regard to leakages, processing of sewage, and the reduction in waste, then there may be considerable savings to in fact pass on to the consumer, which no shareholder would then partake in.

How to realise money for investment for this purpose?

The purpose of privatisation was to gain access to the finance to upgrade the systems. Because government would not – correct, would not – spend that cash on that purpose.

At which point the water companies have gone and borrowed lots and lots to upgrade the systems. Which they have done.

So, we should abolish this system then ensure that the new structure borrows lots and lots to upgrade the system.

Blindingly obvious really…..

9 thoughts on “Interesting”

  1. “the water companies have gone and borrowed lots and lots “
    So if nationised, as per P3, all these debts are what?
    – Defaulted upon?
    – Assumed by the taxpayer?
    I know he wants to destroy everyone’s pensions, but this sound extreme!

  2. Bloke in North Korea (Germany Province))

    We must demolish and rebuild every leaky drain the minute we realise it is leaky because efficiency.

    They actually tried this in North Korea (Germany Province) a few years back. Sent robocams up every damn private drain pipe in the country. I think someone must have realised that it would eat the entire GDP of the country for several years to fix all the problems so very little came of it.

    We will of course be spending the entire GDP for several years on sexier projects to save the world.

  3. TtC: I know he wants to destroy everyone’s pensions

    You have probably got a better grasp of this than me but I thought that everyone’s pension was going to be tied up in zero-coupon untradeable government bonds so your pension “pot” might be “worth” £MM although you will subsist on a diet of roots and berries (subject to availability, Ts&Cs apply).

  4. It strikes me that the water companies operating where I live have busily spending money on directors’ bonuses and various ecofaddy exercises – such as clearing chalk streams and encouraging otters to breed- while doing the bare minimum of sewer maintenance. As an example, there was a water main gushing water down the hill I live on – shall we say 1litre per minute. After 2 weeks, I reported it to the water company. A team came out and did some hole digging on the other side of the road. Problem sorted? No, the flow increased. Out came another team who spent 2 whole days (including lots of teabreaks) fixing it. Meanwhile, on my walks around town, I spotted another 4 comparable leaks. There was even a building site with a broken water pipe gushing water for a week. Maintenance, a word not used in water companies. But at least the directors are getting fat. Nationalisation is obviously not the answer. Not sure that lions would be much use either

  5. Note from Jockland, where essentially the opposite happened (the water supply was taken from local authorities and regionalised, then nationalised): It’s no better. I’ve seen everything Diogenes mentions here in Glasgow. And quite why the People’s Water Soviet sees the need to spend public money on television advertising beats me to a pulp.

  6. The water companies were NOT in national ownership before privatisation – some were owned by private shareholders, most by local authorities.

    Thanks to the benevolence of those public sector owners there was a major case of poisoning in Cornwall shortly before privatisation and the creation of an independent regulator. Minor cases of poisoning, such as the one that caused dysentry at my school while I was taking ‘A’ levels were so common that they were not treated as newsworthy. *That* is what Murphy wishes to restore?!?

  7. I had a colleague who once ranted at me about the horrors of water privatisation. I pointed out that he’d lived much of his life in Cambridge where the water had always been provided by a private company. A fool and his opinions are not easily parted.

  8. PJF
    October 27, 2021 at 12:56 pm

    Entertaining. A quick google shows that horrid coal naturally contains a certain level of thorium, the presence of which seems to be the main criticism of rare earth mining.

    On the whole the titles of the articles seem more critical than those about the radon delivered with natural gas. So I suppose gas is winning the propaganda war.

    There’s even an article about how residential radon can protect against lung cancer, which would certainly be true if the hormesis theory is correct. But of course the same thing could be said about the thorium scattered around the place.

    Still it’s true that the earth’s crust, including the lifeforms that infest it, consists of mildly radioactive waste. So it’s plausible that we’ve adapted to low levels of radiation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *