What can be done about the avaricious and selfish

Cynical ? Moi? No, I know people like those described.

Yes Thatcher did privatise water and apparently 90% of the world have water as a publicly owned asset.
Perhaps we should take heed of this and undo the damage done by Thatcher. Surely it is not beyond the gift of this government to right a terrible wrong.

It is very, very needful: the costs however are very real, not at all straightforward, unless there is a sort of political takeover - well it would be literally a seizure of assets? That cuts out the shareholders.

Probably illegal, and almost certainly some pension funds will be seriously affected and my goodness opposed by some of those who currently cry something must be done

Seriously, I see no easy way out of it because of the costs involved in buying them out. We'll take over Thames Water as the cost of keeping them going is already so very high but really it makes no sense to just control one does it?

Thatcher did a lot of damage encouraging sell off of council houses, but this has turned out to be one of the most pernicious things she ever did. And counter intuitive, and...words fail. 😡

eazybee

Selfishness:Prime Ministers who use a Government Jet to fly from London to Glasgow, then Glasgow to Manchester the following day.
Trips could have been made via train or standard air transport well within the time available.
No wonder Burnham said it was the 'happiest day of his life.'
Not for taxpayers.

Labour (Rachel Reeves) criticised Tories for Sunak's 'private jet habit'
and said Labour would seek to save taxpayers millions of pounds.
Ministerial Code: private planes should only be used when no other alternative is available.

Unless the general public are consistent about very high wages, and actions in general, nothing will change.

And the public are not.

CEOs of international companies are certainly not worth the eye-watering salaries/bonuses they get.

It is pure fallacy to say such salaries are needed to attract the so called “best”

Yes they should understand the climate in which their business exists, and other aspects of their business, but it is certainly not rocket science.

I think that water should be renationalised. As it is not delivering then the investments made haven't paid out, so investors won't get high returns, but that's the risk with investments. Will people be asking about how it would be costed though? That seems to stymie everything a Labour government tries to do - suddenly everyone's an economist and wants balance sheets to scrutinise.

I don't object to high salaries (and am always bewildered when people object to heads of charities being paid the going rate), but the payment should be performance-related, so when they are not performing they don't get paid.

Sadly the media successfully manipulates the public with the political issues they want them to get worked up about, mainly small boats and welfare. Is all smoke and mirrors distracting us from what the very wealthy are getting away with right under our noses and have been getting away with for a very long time.

Frankly we are still living with the Thatcher legacy - will it ever end? Profit, competition, greed, no sense of community and shared responsibility .... if only it were possible that someone might have the power to reverse this - I fear not.

Yes, Luckygirl, and a housing crisis which underpins most of the ills in society.

We don’t get the "best people". We get someone from a small network of “elites” who go from one top job to another and continue to rise despite leaving a trail of corporate disasters in their wake.

Anglian Water’s CEO Mark Thruston was previously in charge of HS2.

It’s called “falling upwards”.

To get around the the restrictions on bonuses brought in by the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 , they are now being called retention payments. Thurston has just been awarded a £500,000 retention payment as part of his £1.9 million package.

Anglian Water said it will be caught by the bonus ban, but still gave more to Thurston. The chief executive, who was Britain’s best-paid public servant when he ran the late and hugely over-budget HS2 rail project, received the bulk of his pay through Anglian’s parent company, including a £500,000 “retention payment”.

Anglian, which provides water and sewerage services to nearly 7 million customers in the East of England, claimed the payment did not count as a bonus because it was not linked to the regulated water company’s performance. The company said the payout was funded by shareholders for work outside the regulated company, and it needed “targeted, time-limited retention arrangements to maintain leadership continuity”.

www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jul/24/water-bosses-pay-rises-bonus-ban-sewage

What work is he doing outside the regulated company that he needs to be paid another half a million for? Are these CEOS holding companies to ransom because they know they can easily "fall upwards" somewhere else?

Don't forget we are also buying back the rail companies one by one as their contracts end. They will then be called Great British Railways (GBR). We have a few of them already.

Maybe the water companies can be bought back slowly, starting with Thames of course, but it will be very costly to the taxpayer. How that compares to the railways I don't know.

doodledog

Of course a good salary is expected by a CEO, but the question is - should it be 130 times more than his company’s employees average salary.

I think it is obscene.

We're not buying back the rail companies. We are taking them back into public ownership at the end of their franchises. They just don't get them renewed.

I might be wrong but I don't think there is any money involved in this. If they had bid for a new franchise (as under the 'old rules') they wouldn't have got any compensation if their bid failed.

Does it come with any debts racked up by the failing companies?

eazybee

Selfishness:Prime Ministers who use a Government Jet to fly from London to Glasgow, then Glasgow to Manchester the following day.
Trips could have been made via train or standard air transport well within the time available.
No wonder Burnham said it was the 'happiest day of his life.'
Not for taxpayers.

Labour (Rachel Reeves) criticised Tories for Sunak's 'private jet habit'
and said Labour would seek to save taxpayers millions of pounds.
Ministerial Code: private planes should only be used when no other alternative is available.

Selfish for using the government airbus in line with the Ministerial code? Well that will apply to all governments then in the past 15 years- hope you are applying the same standard to all PMs over that time period? I highly doubt he could have met his packed diary commitments on Thursday and Friday by taking trains. Yes Sunak was criticised by RR and much of the press for his 'private jet habit' as he took domestic flights far more frequently than his predecessors. All PMs use available on line to compare. Ab was four days into his new job- time will tell whether he develops a habit in the same way Sunak did.

AB flew on the government VIP airbus which departs from a military or private section of an airfield or airport so secure, no queues, no check in delays and no airport security to get through. It also has a highly secure wifi connection so government minster can continue to work securely on line and make secure phone calls.

Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak, Starmer all used the VIP airbus, though Sunak was criticised for more often using private jets. The Ministerial Code has clear long standing rules for the appropriate use of the VIP airbus for government domestic and international travel to permit use for operational, security and schooling priorities and commitments. The flight from Stansted to Manchester took 55 minutes, Glasgow to Manchester 38 minutes (so around 1.5 hours total during which AB could work securely). In comparison the 2 separate train journeys, 4.5 hours and over 3 hours respectively, with actual delays getting towards 8 hours in total. A whole working day essentially that AB would not be able to meet others. Trains of course are often subject to unforeseen departure delays, possible cancellations, wifi connection not secure etc.

AB started off his day on Thursday working in London- then went on to the Hare pub in Harlow Essex to make a policy announcement. From there he went to a private section of Stansted airport to board government VIP Airbus for a 55 minute journey to Glasgow on which he could securely work.

On arrival in Glasgow AB then met with the Welsh First Minster (who also no doubt has a packed diary) and others. AB then went on to the Commonwealth Games where he sat beside King Charles and Camilla for the Opening ceremony that began at 20.00 that carried on late into the evening. So a long day.

AB then had an early start Friday morning and a 38 minute flight to Manchester to open No 10 North. All of these commitments reported in the press..

You tell me the actual time trains AB could have caught and still fitted in all his scheduled dairy commitments, to timescale in London, Harlow, Glasgow and then Manchester on Friday morning?

The Commonwealth Games won’t be opening every Thursday so I doubt AB will take a flight every week from London to Glasgow and then Glasgow to Manchester every Thursday. Time will tell and AB's use of the government airbus can then accurately compared to his predecessors. I suspect you will never catch AB using privately chartered flights that he either pays for himself or gets party benefactors to pay for.

The press and others parities will complain about PM jet travel- twas always thus. As long as AB uses the government airbus in line with the Ministerial code he is no worse than than all recent PMs.

TerriBull

Yes agree Oreo and depressingly because of the binding nature of contracts, it seems they're set in stone, why can't some clauses apply dependent on performance Managers of Health Trusts where overwhelming negligence has occurred on their watch are some of the worst imo and then they just move on to another lucrative position.

Paula Vennels is another who springs to mind she picked up a fair whack and the lives she ruined

Query: has Paula Vennells been prosecuted over her wilfull vendetta against innocent Postmasters? Some did commit suicide so would she be culpable in some way, ie: manslaughter?

She appears to have moved Heaven and Earth in order to save face.

I think Vennells should face charges of negligent manslaughter at the very least. As should those who were in the know either with the PO or working for the company that installed the bloody awful hardware that destroyed peoples lives.
When will those at the top face accountability for anything??
Whilst the rest of us poor mortals face accountability all our lives.

I agree- if there is any justice for those that died charges should be levied against Paula Vennells. Police investigations into the Horizon scandal are complex, and any potential charging decisions depend heavily on the final findings of the ongoing public inquiry. I would guess charges being made in 2027.

The most legally viable and serious criminal charge under English law regarding a loss of life or suicide linked to corporate and individual executive misconduct in this context is gross negligence manslaughter or corporate manslaughter, alongside charges of perverting the course of justice.

Potential Legal Avenues
Gross Negligence Manslaughter: This requires proving that an individual owed a duty of care to the victim, breached that duty in a way that amounted to gross negligence, and that this breach was a substantial cause of death. Legally, tying an individual executive's actions directly to a suicide as a criminal "cause" carries an extremely high legal threshold of proof in UK courts. This would be a difficult charge to prove

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007: This applies to organisations rather than individuals directly, focusing on whether the way the activities of the organisation were managed or organised by senior management amounted to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care. This is likely

Perverting the Course of Justice / Fraud / Perjury: Prosecutors and legal analysts note that building a criminal case against former executives is more reliably anchored to charges like perverting the course of justice, fraud, or misconduct in public/corporate office regarding the systemic wrongful prosecutions and cover-ups, rather than direct homicide charges.. This is a highly likely charge- would be an outcry if not levied





Fairness does not seem to be remotely on the agenda. I did a quick search.

Since 2020.

Food has risen between 37-38%

Wages have risen about 28%- all tax at source.

FTSE bosses income has risen 88% - with various ability to avoid tax.

Whitewavemark2

Fairness does not seem to be remotely on the agenda. I did a quick search.

Since 2020.

Food has risen between 37-38%

Wages have risen about 28%- all tax at source.

FTSE bosses income has risen 88% - with various ability to avoid tax.

That is disgraceful and makes me so angry.
😡

eazybee

Selfishness:Prime Ministers who use a Government Jet to fly from London to Glasgow, then Glasgow to Manchester the following day.
Trips could have been made via train or standard air transport well within the time available.
No wonder Burnham said it was the 'happiest day of his life.'
Not for taxpayers.

Labour (Rachel Reeves) criticised Tories for Sunak's 'private jet habit'
and said Labour would seek to save taxpayers millions of pounds.
Ministerial Code: private planes should only be used when no other alternative is available.

eazybee please could you back this up with timetabled proof. Factoring in any PM’s ability to work during the time they were travelling. Thankyou.

How much is it all going to cost us? Flights or trains or petrol. Hotels. Subsistence. It's not going to be just him is it. Can't help thinking of the EU parliament packing up every six months and moving from Brussels to Strasburg and back which used to make me grind my teeth. Is it really necessary? As far as I can see it's a complete and utter waste of our tax money.

Whitewavemark2

Fairness does not seem to be remotely on the agenda. I did a quick search.

Since 2020.

Food has risen between 37-38%

Wages have risen about 28%- all tax at source.

FTSE bosses income has risen 88% - with various ability to avoid tax.

I'm puzzled as to why you expect fairness to be 'on the agenda'.

It is not part of the neoliberal economic policy agenda which has been implemented in the UK since the Thatcher era. The supremacy of 'markets' and the interests of owners thereof are the focus.

I posted about the Companies Act 2006 to show that the only duty of care a company's directors' legally have is to the members, i.e the shareholders, of the company. The rest they merely 'have regard too' which is a vastly different from a 'duty'. While neglect of customers and suppliers would have serious financial repercussions for a business the directors can try to get away with poor wages and terms of employment as much as they can. Cheap labour increases their profits and weak unions are unable to do much about them.

When unions, which are the only defence for many employees against exploitation, try to do something radical to change this they are castigated by the media, by politicians and by a very significant portion of the general populace.

What is more, neoliberal economic theory convinces us that better pay and conditions for labour would only lead to increased prices and inflation. An argument as old as the hills, if not older...

Corporate greed is fine. Workers' desire for a larger slice of the pie is reprehensible...

(And before GG13 starts objecting, yes, some employers are excellent)

veronica678

How much is it all going to cost us? Flights or trains or petrol. Hotels. Subsistence. It's not going to be just him is it. Can't help thinking of the EU parliament packing up every six months and moving from Brussels to Strasburg and back which used to make me grind my teeth. Is it really necessary? As far as I can see it's a complete and utter waste of our tax money.

I would start saving for a set of dentures right now.

The teeth grinding does terrible things to your teeth and I doubt if the practices which annoy you are going to stop...

Wyllow3

It is very, very needful: the costs however are very real, not at all straightforward, unless there is a sort of political takeover - well it would be literally a seizure of assets? That cuts out the shareholders.

Probably illegal, and almost certainly some pension funds will be seriously affected and my goodness opposed by some of those who currently cry something must be done

Seriously, I see no easy way out of it because of the costs involved in buying them out. We'll take over Thames Water as the cost of keeping them going is already so very high but really it makes no sense to just control one does it?

Thatcher did a lot of damage encouraging sell off of council houses, but this has turned out to be one of the most pernicious things she ever did. And counter intuitive, and...words fail. 😡

If Thatcher had used the money to attract new industry to the old mining towns, & put something more worthwhile than the old YTS in place for unemployed young people, then it would be more understandble (although still need reversing probably , at this point).
But what dod she use it for? Cutting taxes on the wealthy, as far as I can remember.