Thames Water

[Spartacus]

There are moves to place Thames Water into a SAR (Special Administration Regime) effectively renationalising it and wiping out its debt. 

But then what ? 

There is also rumours of lookmg for a new owner, including a Chinese backed group that already owns Northumbrian water and UK power. 

Is that a controversial move as it places another of our inferstructural assets in foreign hands? 

Should it be renationalised and run as a not for profit government organisation, placing investment and improvements before  shareholders?

This in itself would adversely impact pension funds who have invested in utilities. 

Its fairly obvious that Thames Water needs rescuing or restructure but what is the optimum and correct path to take ? 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

14 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Should it be renationalised and run as a not for profit government organisation, placing investment and improvements before  shareholders?

Yes.

[Spartacus]

Great answer, but how do you then square it up with pension pots investments without adversely impacting future growth. 

Buit of a tricky one as on one hand it should be nationalised but on the other we don't want to see future pension poverty relying on government top ups. 

Far too complicated for a simple answer 

 

[Sue]

58 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Great answer, but how do you then square it up with pension pots investments without adversely impacting future growth. 

Buit of a tricky one as on one hand it should be nationalised but on the other we don't want to see future pension poverty relying on government top ups. 

Far too complicated for a simple answer 

 

So what would be your preference then, Spartacus, and why?

[Spartacus]

Thats the problem, I dont have a solution, but I can see disadvantages of some of the proposed solutions. 

Not selling it to a foreign company is my preference but after that I have no idea of the best path / solution with the least impact for all.

Whats your view Sue ? 

[Jenijenjen]

4 hours ago, Spartacus said:

 

This in itself would adversely impact pension funds who have invested in utilities. 

I would hope that those managing pension funds that have invested in TW have already seen the writing on the wall and are investing elsewhere.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Agree with Jenijenjen.

Ultimately, water is an essential resource and a natural monopoly. It should be publicly owned imo. 

[just_browsing]

28 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Agree with Jenijenjen.

Ultimately, water is an essential resource and a natural monopoly. It should be publicly owned imo. 

There is a reason why I think only England and Chile (no idea why) have a fully privatised national water set-up, and why the UN recognises the right to water as a human right - "the right to water entitles everyone to have access to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible, and affordable water for personal and domestic use".

 

Whoever is running pension funds should be shifting sharply, if they haven't done so already (and I'm sure they haven't for the most part).

[Sue]

7 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Thats the problem, I dont have a solution, but I can see disadvantages of some of the proposed solutions. 

Not selling it to a foreign company is my preference but after that I have no idea of the best path / solution with the least impact for all.

Whats your view Sue ? 

I think it should be brought back into public ownership.

However, I admit that that is not based on any facts at all, just on my dislike of shareholders making money from a business which doesn't appear to be doing what it's supposed to do.

[Happyme5]

It would cost so much  now.  But pay off for us in the long run. Thatcher and her privatisation of public services.  It is a total disaster