They've dug a hole outside my house which they seem to have abandoned.
Ideology and corruption.Why can't they just let it go bust, thus writing off their debts, and then snap it up on the cheap?
We are about to be totally stung regarding this shower of bastards
I am struggling to get my head around the suggestion that the tax-payer could end-up picking up a massive debt here.
Why can't they just let it go bust, thus writing off their debts, and then snap it up on the cheap?
It's like ripping off a band-aid though. It has to be done at some point, so just grit your teeth and do it.‘Going bust’ merely means their workers will lose their jobs.
As for renationalising it, the issue, of course, is that the taxpayer will then be directly on the hook for the repair, investment and improvement programme that is desperately needed but which hasn’t happened as profit has been siphoned off by shareholders and the board.
As usual the now inevitable state intervention will 15 years too late, costly to the taxpayer and will leave those responsible free to do the same to other industries and services.
‘Going bust’ merely means their workers will lose their jobs.
That would involve the water supply in the capital being shut off which I imagine even this govt might realise is not something that will go down well with the votersI am struggling to get my head around the suggestion that the tax-payer could end-up picking up a massive debt here.
Why can't they just let it go bust, thus writing off their debts, and then snap it up on the cheap?
I am struggling to get my head around the suggestion that the tax-payer could end-up picking up a massive debt here.
Why can't they just let it go bust, thus writing off their debts, and then snap it up on the cheap?
It is ‘bust’ already, in that it can’t now fund its own investment to allow it to operate safely. That’s the inevitable outcome of corporate finance/asset management ownership of natural monopolies solely as vehicles for extracting ratios of dividends and interest. Of course, in the case of a natural monopoly of our most basic physiological need, the moral hazard is so pronounced that workers will not lose their jobs.‘Going bust’ merely means their workers will lose their jobs.
As for renationalising it, the issue, of course, is that the taxpayer will then be directly on the hook for the repair, investment and improvement programme that is desperately needed but which hasn’t happened as profit has been siphoned off by shareholders and the board.
As usual the now inevitable state intervention will 15 years too late, costly to the taxpayer and will leave those responsible free to do the same to other industries and services.
The workers wouldn't lose their jobs, businesses often go bust, and then immediately get taken over, and continue business as usual.
That would involve the water supply in the capital being shut off which I imagine even this govt might realise is not something that will go down well with the voters
Yes, they often do, but they often don’t too. Or they do but then there are job cuts. Or they do but it’s dismissal and re-engagement on inferior terms.
No it wouldn't, a bankrupt business can be rescued and continue trading without interruption, under new owners.
An example is a company I used to work for, Johnson Press went bust, and taken over in a 'pre-package' arrangement by JPI Media, as in Johnson Press Int. Media, and continued without any interruption to the business.
That's a deal struck by the administrators though isn't it. The administrators are duty bound to get the best deal for the creditors. The best deal for Thames Waters creditors isn't going to be the Govt getting it for a song.No it wouldn't, a bankrupt business can be rescued and continue trading without interruption, under new owners.
An example is a company I used to work for, Johnson Press went bust, and taken over in a 'pre-package' arrangement by JPI Media, as in Johnson Press Int. Media, and continued without any interruption to the business.
After the state bails it out there will be a long queue of asset management corporations anxious to take it for another ride.Who do you imagine would want to take it over? Given the £14Bn debt and the infrastructure/repair programme of work needed?
Yeah surely if they are on the verge of bankruptcy then their shares are worthless anyway.I am struggling to get my head around the suggestion that the tax-payer could end-up picking up a massive debt here.
Why can't they just let it go bust, thus writing off their debts, and then snap it up on the cheap?
Yeah simalar thing happened to my employer when they went bust about 8 years ago. They sold the assets to a new company in a "pre package" deal and restarted as a new company with a simalar name but with new owners. I was one of the lucky ones that got my job back although some people did lose their jobsNo it wouldn't, a bankrupt business can be rescued and continue trading without interruption, under new owners.
An example is a company I used to work for, Johnson Press went bust, and taken over in a 'pre-package' arrangement by JPI Media, as in Johnson Press Int. Media, and continued without any interruption to the business.
This is going to be the big problem with them being nationalised. The Govt will simply transfer any debt from the company to the national debt which will be good in the short term since it will enable the company to spend any profits on investment but a future Tory govt will be able to flog it off again as debt free sometime in the 2030's if they want.After the state bails it out there will be a long queue of asset management corporations anxious to take it for another ride.
Well no they're not owning the shares means that whoever buys them will own lots of things especially land in the SE which will raise quite a bit if sold off as land.Yeah surely if they are on the verge of bankruptcy then their shares are worthless anyway.
It all makes complete sense when you accept that the modern, neoliberal consolidator state exists solely to effect the regressive transfer of wealth from taxes on labour to unearned private income. Moral hazard and corporate welfare, innit?This is going to be the big problem with them being nationalised. The Govt will simply transfer any debt from the company to the national debt which will be good in the short term since it will enable the company to spend any profits on investment but a future Tory govt will be able to flog it off again as debt free sometime in the 2030's if they want.
Well no they're not owning the shares means that whoever buys them will own lots of things especially land in the SE which will raise quite a bit if sold off as land.
Personally I'm narked as everyone else and can fully understand the appeal of just seizing the assets and mounting the heads of the board on spikes outside the company HQ as a warning to others but in the real world, the state stumping up a shitload of cash to just buy it is probably the least unacceptable option.
The deserving or undeserving investors?Of course they should be reprivatised, but one of the many problems is that the investors include pension funds (Universities Superannuation scheme owns 19.7% and a Canadian pension scheme 31%) and if the govt sacks them off there's a whole new can of worms.
I dunno, tbh, but it's bloody tough for retired people relying on their pension fund having made a sensible investment. And those retired people aren't all rich gits.The deserving or undeserving investors?
TrueI dunno, tbh, but it's bloody tough for retired people relying on their pension fund having made a sensible investment. And those retired people aren't all rich gits.