What can be done about the avaricious and selfish

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 😡

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.

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

There is a revolving door system, always has been, where people know other people to recommend when a vacancy becomes available. They all just move through it, in and out.

As for the view that they are ‘ the best’ so should be paid a kings ransom is just nonsense.

They are people who ‘know’ people often from school, friends of friends, all wealthy, wanting to keep the plum jobs within their particular circle because they all use it on their way up the greasy pole.

Casdon

The government can’t just decide to buy out private organisations at huge cost to the taxpayer, that’s why the approach to water is as it is. I still think Thames Water will be nationalised in this parliament, but only when there is no other option because the company has failed. There are previous threads about this on Gransnet if you want the detail.

When industries were privatised by the post war Labour government they were paid for by issuing bonds to the owners. Which is a far cheaper option than a cash purchase. Bonds initially cost the government nothing and the interest payments on the bonds are spread out over the number of years specified by the bond issue.

It looks like a good solution, spreading the cost, if it is still possible to do today.

I am not against high salaries per se, as in the 21st century companies have to pay the going rate to attract the best.

They're not attracting 'the best', though, are they ?

These extraordinarily high salaries for CEOs are nodded through at AGMs by the majority of shareholders, predominantly institutions and the already very wealthy who really don't care about fairness in wage differentials so long as the company shares are paying them good dividends.

Big businesses have less interest in the pay and conditions of their 'ordinary' workers, their focus is satisfying their shareholders. Under the Companies Act 2006 directors have a 'duty of care to the company members (shareholders) but are only required to 'have regard to' stakeholders, i.e others with an interest in the company, such as employees, customers and suppliers.

Fallingstar

Grandmabatty

Water is under public ownership in Scotland. We do pay for it, but as part of our council tax. I don't see why England couldn't do the same. We have had a number of burst mains recently but Scottish Water have been busy fixing them.

That is as it should be.
Well done Scotland.

It’s similar in Wales, but it happened because the devolved administrations manage water, it was never sold off when it was in England. So, it is a different ballpark.

It is a bit frightening that there is privatised water in the UK . It really should be public, it should be for the benefit of everyone not foreign owners who want money. I wasn’t aware that it was private, when did that happen ? I’d bet my bottom dollar it was the milk snatcher ( Thatcher )

It’s not good for my blood pressure or well being to contemplate this profligacy so I don’t. No point getting my knickers in a twist as I can’t change anything about the situation.

Grandmabatty

Water is under public ownership in Scotland. We do pay for it, but as part of our council tax. I don't see why England couldn't do the same. We have had a number of burst mains recently but Scottish Water have been busy fixing them.

That is as it should be.
Well done Scotland.

Water is under public ownership in Scotland. We do pay for it, but as part of our council tax. I don't see why England couldn't do the same. We have had a number of burst mains recently but Scottish Water have been busy fixing them.

Surely a wealth tax would help with the expenses incurred renationalising water. But am aware our tax system isn’t fit for purpose, is clunky, antiquated, and full of holes. So firstly the tax system needs completely overhauling.

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.