• BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Hold the fucking phone! The plan is to renationalise, fix it, then sell it again? That’s a joke right? That’s just a bailout with extra steps!

    What is to stop Thames Water from going down the exact same road again when the private bullshit is reversed exactly?

    • Chariotwheel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      I like to mention it often, but in Germany state run water companies run self-sufficient and even make money to invest in keeping the infrastructure alive. In my city we have a water loss of less than 2% due to well maintained pipes. Thames Water is losing like 25%!

      I still can’t believe how this company got to grift the British people in broad daylight and is now asking for more to grift and government in charge still wants more of this.

      • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Thames is the worst for loss. They claim its due to serving London. The age of the city and difficulty accessing many pipes due to shouting down traffic.

        Sorta sounds reasonable. Untill you look at how much money has been taken out. Its clearly more about profit.

  • n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Investing is no different than gambling, if your investment failed. You should taken the L and learn your lesson on checking that Billions aren’t being syphoned out of the company.

    Nationalize the assets (appropriation) and leave the people who did the syphoning have to pay it back. It is their problem not Britain’s.

    If you can’t be trusted to work for the people you are serving, you shouldn’t be running that particular company

  • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Why not let it collapse. Let them claim bankruptcy. It might mean lenders in the future require better governance. Or it might lead to pushes to reclaim monies inappropriately siphoned off.

    • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Yep. The UK in the past has had the military distribute water. 1976 when heat caused shortage issues. But other times as well when communities have had issues.

      Same thing can be done in 2024 while the company struggles to survive. I’d much rather money spent on that. Then paying of investors who made loans based on bad company investment.

      Why tf teach lenders that the UK will bail out companies that fail to invest in the inferstructure they manage.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Yep, bankruptcy and let the state or a cooperative buy the assets, not the liabilities.

      • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Exactly. Let the investors and banks that allowed them, eat the losses. That’s what privatization is. Risk.

        Unfortunately, commercial interests in the governments ear will try to say that it will cost them as they will get less for future provatisations. Good. If they are not commercially viable, don’t do them. They forget in that argument that they may get more but they would be on the hook for more later to clean up similar messes.