Water privatisation was never intended to create competition, it was to improve investment with private money but the legislation wasn't suitable to make sure they invest a certain amount before profiting and borrowing. Debt is also not taxable.
Getting wrapped up in the nuance of the financial position misses the most fundamental point; this is about preventing catastrophic environment impact, protecting our natural landscapes and aquatic habitats. The commercial position will always ultimately be manageable. The impact on nature is immediate.
True, even though I’d say the two are connected. Spillages and environmental impacts have been allowed by repeated under-investment that will always be linked to the commercial position. If Thames Water is financially healthy, it will invest in its future. If it fights for its survival it will rather focus on fixing the immediate fires, and the environment sadly won’t be prioritized.
I guess one needs to blame Thames water for that and no one else Sure, we could blame others if got down to it in detail like everyone that has any dealings with Thames water,includes customers I guess, banks that support it by running accounts, rate it back to the tea lady that supports them even ? The buck stops with the company imo and if they do not provide a safe product they should be fined properly. That is how it works for all small business that fal to produce a product up to standards right? Why should it be different for large companies?
There is a concept that may apply to them: "too big to fail" (it was widely applied during the 2009 financial crisis) There's also the fact, that they are private but in a controlled market, as prices are a political topic. Those two caveats out of the way, I'd mostly agree with you, though!
By the way, my kids left the nicest of all easter eggs in my background decor. Looks like they're not mad at me for being a noisy neighbor to their rooms at night 😅
My sources are actually quite clearly in the public domain: several BBC articles, 2 former BBC podcasts (the one clearly marked as so in the video), and Global Water Intelligence.
Look, I honestly don't know at all. I just found interesting in retrospect to note how this BBC interview at the same time aged well and terribly. The problems were laid out rightfully. Just the 8-year plan seems to have been wildly reshuffled over the past week. Do you have insider input?
Water privatisation was never intended to create competition, it was to improve investment with private money but the legislation wasn't suitable to make sure they invest a certain amount before profiting and borrowing. Debt is also not taxable.
Getting wrapped up in the nuance of the financial position misses the most fundamental point; this is about preventing catastrophic environment impact, protecting our natural landscapes and aquatic habitats. The commercial position will always ultimately be manageable. The impact on nature is immediate.
True, even though I’d say the two are connected. Spillages and environmental impacts have been allowed by repeated under-investment that will always be linked to the commercial position. If Thames Water is financially healthy, it will invest in its future. If it fights for its survival it will rather focus on fixing the immediate fires, and the environment sadly won’t be prioritized.
Not the first time, last time Germany's RWE Group messed up Thames water we finally got rid of RWE after they sold up Npower.
RWE has a certain flair in investing or divesting at the wrong time - what they did with American Water is a masterclass 😅
I guess one needs to blame Thames water for that and no one else
Sure, we could blame others if got down to it in detail like everyone that has any dealings with Thames water,includes customers I guess, banks that support it by running accounts, rate it back to the tea lady that supports them even ?
The buck stops with the company imo and if they do not provide a safe product they should be fined properly.
That is how it works for all small business that fal to produce a product up to standards right? Why should it be different for large companies?
@@AntoineWalterDWWare you aware of a company called chase Manhatten? Read up a little on the way they ran water many years ago.
I feel like, you may like this one: th-cam.com/video/WjKikG_SxAI/w-d-xo.html
😉
There is a concept that may apply to them: "too big to fail" (it was widely applied during the 2009 financial crisis)
There's also the fact, that they are private but in a controlled market, as prices are a political topic.
Those two caveats out of the way, I'd mostly agree with you, though!
By the way, my kids left the nicest of all easter eggs in my background decor. Looks like they're not mad at me for being a noisy neighbor to their rooms at night 😅
Can you send me the Sources for this?
My sources are actually quite clearly in the public domain: several BBC articles, 2 former BBC podcasts (the one clearly marked as so in the video), and Global Water Intelligence.
Do you think the Thames Water Staff actually miss Sarah Bently or need her advice on anything?
I think not.
Look, I honestly don't know at all. I just found interesting in retrospect to note how this BBC interview at the same time aged well and terribly. The problems were laid out rightfully. Just the 8-year plan seems to have been wildly reshuffled over the past week.
Do you have insider input?
Klepto Capitalism in shallow waters ...