News on the domestic front

It is effectively bust shareholders will loose out that is separate from the loans, they are backed with real assets and will have to be repaid, defaulting on secured loans will bring the whole economy down, only Banana Republics do that

TW actually own all the reservoirs, pipework and treatment works loans were secured against them the government will have to buy them back. That was the downside of the privatization rush, a short term gain that has come back to bite us.

Value on the balance sheet is over £20bn if the economy had spare cash it would just buy it all back, Its not just £20bn it's the extra investment needed to improve the infrastructure maybe £1 or 2bn per year, that would have to paid by consumers.

Thames water is effectively bust, David. Any investment, other than in government bonds, is a risk. Those who invested in Thames Water will just have to take their losses. Considering that it has been a cash cow for 'investors' for a considerable number of years, at the expense of its customers, I can't feel that we owe them anything...

I despair of you ever understanding that government 'borrowing' is mostly the government reclaiming money that it has already issued...

I still don't understand where you, and many others, think that the nation's money originates...

Privatization was purely a way of borrowing more money to improve infrastructure without it directly adding to the national debt. Private enterprise was expected to be more efficient and provide a better service, it certainly was more efficient lining the pockets of the executives.

If that is going to be reversed now without any improvements the cost is massive, Thames alone is estimated at £20bn plus, nationalize everything and its going to be £100bn plus, maybe there will be some promises made soon, I really don't expect very much with cost of living being so prominent.

Whitewavemark2

No that remark was addressed to maizie who knows who I’m talking about.

I actually agree with you, Wwmk2. 😂

I never have the sound on for his videos; I only open them so that I can read the comments on them... I read his transcriptions (but then, I dislike using the spoken word for information because it's easier to recheck the written word than it is the spoken)

But when he is talking economic practicalities I respect both the logic which drives them and the way he explains and illuminates issues. His new series of infographics is very good.

Oh

I know 🤭but couldn’t resist.

No that remark was addressed to maizie who knows who I’m talking about.

Whitewavemark2

I do wish he would change that photo, talk about gloom. He looks a miserable old bugger. I have yet to hear him talk with any joy about anything!

Who, Starmer?😄
Fret no more…he has just resigned from being an MP as well as PM.

I do wish he would change that photo, talk about gloom. He looks a miserable old bugger. I have yet to hear him talk with any joy about anything!

Boat numbers are now the lowest since Brexit 7-8 years ago, as a result of th3 agreement negotiated by Starmer with the EU.

Whitewavemark2

David49

The problem with re-nationalization is where does the money come from, if it's not coming from external loans or shareholders then where?.

Honestly, the cost is immense and I just don't see how it can be done without borrowing more. We should not exaggerate the value of growth when we are replacing existing services either the customer pays more or the state subsidizes more.

Yes, that is what I am wondering, although clearly it has been done by myriad countries, and done successfully.

No doubt all will be explained as and when, although I can’t see it happening very soon.

But I do see it as pretty essential.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2026/08/28/the-nationalisation-taboo/#gsc.tab=0

A starting point for discussion?

Agree or disagree? Reasons?

grumppa

I can see the intellectual and political arguments for public control of utilities, especially water, but I do have concerns about their public administration. As I recall, it was in part the sheer inefficiency of the public utilities that led to calls for their privatisation.

I think that you recall wrongly, grumppa. No ordinary member of the public 'called for privatisation', it was political ideology, Thatcher's political ideology, that drove privatisation. A political ideology based on the belief that state ownership would eventually lead to communism, promulgated by an economist called Hayek in his book 'The road to Serfdom'.

Of course, a story had to be told to 'sell' the idea of privatisation to voters and 'inefficiency' was a good one .

Unfortunately, turning state enterprises over to private ownership has been far from successful. It worked well for the profits of private companies and for their investors but has it improved the wellbeing of the general population? The water industry is a prime example, spewing sewage into our rivers and seas, failing to build, or even repair, the infrastructure needed to service the needs of a growing population? Did the rail industry suddenly become more efficient? Why do we have a National Grid which is barely capable of connecting electricity produced by alternative sources of energy to the grid? How did we fare under the disastrous privatisation of the Probation Service? Why are we at the mercy of foreign owners of industries who can shut down operations, with the consequent loss of jobs, in the interests of their balance sheets (British Steel?). Is this a good result of adhering to an ideology?

We have struggling and insufficiently financed public services as a result of the ideology which says that state spending on them is undesirable. Are we happy with this?

Why do we, and countries like the US and Russia, have an inordinate number of hyperwealthy individuals enriched by this ideology when very significant numbers of their populations live in poverty or near poverty?

Why?

grumppa

I can see the intellectual and political arguments for public control of utilities, especially water, but I do have concerns about their public administration. As I recall, it was in part the sheer inefficiency of the public utilities that led to calls for their privatisation.

I can attest to that. I had always worked in the private sector.
In the 80s I went to work for a nationalised industry.
It’s a whole different world. 😱
The problem there being, you end up being like them.
I just hope that if we ever do renationalise it will be with a different mindset to the old ways.
Having said that, I listened to the whole debacle that was HS2.
£7 billion spend before a spade hit the ground.
There was a piece on radio 4 telling of the obscene corruption by the sub contractors.

Badenoch has changed her mind and had a shadow cabinet reshuffle, even though she said there would be none before the election.

Quite a bold move to employ Andrew Griffiths in the shadow chancellor slot, given that he was fully behind Liz Truss and her lunatic budget.

grumppa

I can see the intellectual and political arguments for public control of utilities, especially water, but I do have concerns about their public administration. As I recall, it was in part the sheer inefficiency of the public utilities that led to calls for their privatisation.

I think that in privatisation the biggest factor was Thatchers o obsession with laissez faire.

The prices of all the utilities rose way above inflation immediately after privatisation, which of course as we now know was not used to upgrade the infrastructure - in waters case- rather to go to t line the very deep pockets of the executive and shareholders - many if which were foreign.

I can see the intellectual and political arguments for public control of utilities, especially water, but I do have concerns about their public administration. As I recall, it was in part the sheer inefficiency of the public utilities that led to calls for their privatisation.

David49

The problem with re-nationalization is where does the money come from, if it's not coming from external loans or shareholders then where?.

Honestly, the cost is immense and I just don't see how it can be done without borrowing more. We should not exaggerate the value of growth when we are replacing existing services either the customer pays more or the state subsidizes more.

Yes, that is what I am wondering, although clearly it has been done by myriad countries, and done successfully.

No doubt all will be explained as and when, although I can’t see it happening very soon.

But I do see it as pretty essential.

The problem with re-nationalization is where does the money come from, if it's not coming from external loans or shareholders then where?.

Honestly, the cost is immense and I just don't see how it can be done without borrowing more. We should not exaggerate the value of growth when we are replacing existing services either the customer pays more or the state subsidizes more.

China’s involvement in our water companies.

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-15764755/Jilted-Thames-Water-bidder-accused-China-links.html

Oreo We arnt talking about small local incidents. Planning is for the worst case scenario.

If our utilities are safe, why did The National Grid rip out every component supplied by the Chinese.

www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/britains-national-grid-drops-china-based-supplier-over-cyber-security-fears-ft-2023-12-17/

Bringing back utilities into public control will raise growth in a number of ways.

The utilities will no longer be burdened by the need to make excess profit, and pay its executive and shareholders money that could usefully be used to repair and expand infrastructure, which in turn will bring work to construction businesses and so forth.

Cleaning up our rivers etc will be a huge benefit imo - you only have to look at Scotland.

Businesses will benefit from government control of prices as will domestic users, as well as more control over international shock. Paris reduced water prices by 8% almost immediately it was taken back into public control.

There are loads of examples throughout the world where utilities have been re-nationalised and the benefit it has given the population and business.

Don’t get your meaning Petra
Last Winter we had a day without electricity and took our neighbours who don’t drive to a garden centre where we all had a hot meal.Another time we went to a pub, our outages tend to be very local, only a few miles away life goes on as normal.

Whitewavemark2

Burnham is to push for growth by bringing utilities back into public control.

I thought he had u turned on bringing Thames Water into public ownership.

Oreo

Whitewavemark2

I am also giving consideration to adding stuff to my pantry. I might buy the odd extra thing on a weekly basis including water.

Water stored is pretty essential I think if you live in the south east where water is frequently cut off.

One would hope that none of this would be a common sense thing to do, but with idiots like Putin I can’t be confident that crises will not happen.

I have always lived in the South East and my water supply has never been cut off!
Electricity cuts, yes frequently but only very locally so there’s always a cafe or pub to go to for-meals.

Oreo
You won’t be the only one turning up at the cafe or pub, ie, you won’t be the only one who’s water or elec has gone off.

I think the utilities should be back into public control but the push for economic growth will need far more than that, in fact unsure if that will bring any tbh but it’s more a point of principle than anything else and actually having control of things.
Parliament will be back this week and am interested to see AB’s other proposals.