https://www.ft.com/content/deaf19d6-8da1-4241-a1e6-2635535de88eYet you blindly support 3-7-10 waters here in NZ which is privatisation by stealth!
Perhaps privatisation of major utilities is just as much a bad idea in
the UK as it has been in New Zealand with electricity . . .
from that article:
"Ministers have discussed a temporary nationalisation of Thames Water
as investors and the government braced for the potential collapse of
the debt-laden utility.
Wednesday’s contingency planning came a day after the abrupt exit of Thames Water chief executive Sarah Bentley, who was battling to turn
round a company with a legacy of under-investment and £14bn of debt
just as UK interest rates hit their highest level since 2008.
Shareholders 12 months ago promised to invest £500mn in the company —
the first equity injection since privatisation — and pledged a further £1bn subject to conditions. But the £500mn was only paid this March
and the additional £1bn has never been paid."
and:
"The state of the UK’s water and sewage networks has become a hot political issue, with attention on pollution and leaks, and questions
over whether the privatised utilities are prioritising shareholder
dividends over investment.
Defra, the environment ministry, held emergency talks with industry regulator Ofwat to discuss a government-led solution in case the
country’s largest water company was unable to raise private finance in
the coming weeks, according to government officials."
and
"After being sold with almost no debt at privatisation three decades
ago, UK water companies have taken on borrowings of £60.6bn, diverting income from customer bills to pay interest payments."
https://www.ft.com/content/deaf19d6-8da1-4241-a1e6-2635535de88e
Perhaps privatisation of major utilities is just as much a bad idea in
the UK as it has been in New Zealand with electricity . . .
from that article:
"Ministers have discussed a temporary nationalisation of Thames Water
as investors and the government braced for the potential collapse of
the debt-laden utility.
Wednesday’s contingency planning came a day after the abrupt exit of
Thames Water chief executive Sarah Bentley, who was battling to turn
round a company with a legacy of under-investment and £14bn of debt
just as UK interest rates hit their highest level since 2008.
Shareholders 12 months ago promised to invest £500mn in the company —
the first equity injection since privatisation — and pledged a further
£1bn subject to conditions. But the £500mn was only paid this March
and the additional £1bn has never been paid."
and:
"The state of the UK’s water and sewage networks has become a hot
political issue, with attention on pollution and leaks, and questions
over whether the privatised utilities are prioritising shareholder
dividends over investment.
Defra, the environment ministry, held emergency talks with industry
regulator Ofwat to discuss a government-led solution in case the
country’s largest water company was unable to raise private finance in
the coming weeks, according to government officials."
and
"After being sold with almost no debt at privatisation three decades
ago, UK water companies have taken on borrowings of £60.6bn, diverting
income from customer bills to pay interest payments."
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 23:24:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://www.ft.com/content/deaf19d6-8da1-4241-a1e6-2635535de88e
Perhaps privatisation of major utilities is just as much a bad idea in
the UK as it has been in New Zealand with electricity . . .
from that article:
"Ministers have discussed a temporary nationalisation of Thames Water
as investors and the government braced for the potential collapse of
the debt-laden utility.
Wednesday’s contingency planning came a day after the abrupt exit of
Thames Water chief executive Sarah Bentley, who was battling to turn
round a company with a legacy of under-investment and £14bn of debt
just as UK interest rates hit their highest level since 2008.
Shareholders 12 months ago promised to invest £500mn in the company —
the first equity injection since privatisation — and pledged a further
£1bn subject to conditions. But the £500mn was only paid this March
and the additional £1bn has never been paid."
and:
"The state of the UK’s water and sewage networks has become a hot
political issue, with attention on pollution and leaks, and questions
over whether the privatised utilities are prioritising shareholder >>dividends over investment.
Defra, the environment ministry, held emergency talks with industry >>regulator Ofwat to discuss a government-led solution in case the
country’s largest water company was unable to raise private finance in
the coming weeks, according to government officials."
and
"After being sold with almost no debt at privatisation three decades
ago, UK water companies have taken on borrowings of £60.6bn, diverting >>income from customer bills to pay interest payments."
That is all about UK politics and has no relevance here, unless you
believe everything that has been tried and failed overseas should not
be implemented here.
On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 11:06:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 23:24:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
https://www.ft.com/content/deaf19d6-8da1-4241-a1e6-2635535de88e
Perhaps privatisation of major utilities is just as much a bad idea in >>>the UK as it has been in New Zealand with electricity . . .
from that article:
"Ministers have discussed a temporary nationalisation of Thames Water
as investors and the government braced for the potential collapse of
the debt-laden utility.
Wednesday’s contingency planning came a day after the abrupt exit of >>>Thames Water chief executive Sarah Bentley, who was battling to turn >>>round a company with a legacy of under-investment and £14bn of debt
just as UK interest rates hit their highest level since 2008.
Shareholders 12 months ago promised to invest £500mn in the company — >>>the first equity injection since privatisation — and pledged a further >>>£1bn subject to conditions. But the £500mn was only paid this March
and the additional £1bn has never been paid."
and:
"The state of the UKÂ’s water and sewage networks has become a hot >>>political issue, with attention on pollution and leaks, and questions >>>over whether the privatised utilities are prioritising shareholder >>>dividends over investment.
Defra, the environment ministry, held emergency talks with industry >>>regulator Ofwat to discuss a government-led solution in case the >>>countryÂ’s largest water company was unable to raise private finance in >>>the coming weeks, according to government officials."
and
"After being sold with almost no debt at privatisation three decades
ago, UK water companies have taken on borrowings of £60.6bn, diverting >>>income from customer bills to pay interest payments."
That is all about UK politics and has no relevance here, unless you
believe everything that has been tried and failed overseas should not
be implemented here.
A key issue with Thames Water is that when it was sold, the new owner
sat back and took little interest in anything other than taking
profits -
as much spending as possible was funded by borrowing or
avoided by under-investment. Remind you of NZ Rail? Or even of our electricity companies which are basing expansion on the minimum
capital required to meet current and short term demand - they have
little interest in more efficient generation as that requires capital
to be used before it is needed; hence we still burn coal in times of
peak demand - the cost just gets picked up by electricity users, not
the shareholders . . .
On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 11:06:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>In most cases the electricity users are the shareholders. So that's OK then isn't it?
wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 23:24:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
https://www.ft.com/content/deaf19d6-8da1-4241-a1e6-2635535de88e
Perhaps privatisation of major utilities is just as much a bad idea in >>>the UK as it has been in New Zealand with electricity . . .
from that article:
"Ministers have discussed a temporary nationalisation of Thames Water
as investors and the government braced for the potential collapse of
the debt-laden utility.
Wednesday’s contingency planning came a day after the abrupt exit of >>>Thames Water chief executive Sarah Bentley, who was battling to turn >>>round a company with a legacy of under-investment and £14bn of debt
just as UK interest rates hit their highest level since 2008.
Shareholders 12 months ago promised to invest £500mn in the company —
the first equity injection since privatisation — and pledged a further >>>£1bn subject to conditions. But the £500mn was only paid this March
and the additional £1bn has never been paid."
and:
"The state of the UK’s water and sewage networks has become a hot >>>political issue, with attention on pollution and leaks, and questions >>>over whether the privatised utilities are prioritising shareholder >>>dividends over investment.
Defra, the environment ministry, held emergency talks with industry >>>regulator Ofwat to discuss a government-led solution in case the >>>country’s largest water company was unable to raise private finance in >>>the coming weeks, according to government officials."
and
"After being sold with almost no debt at privatisation three decades
ago, UK water companies have taken on borrowings of £60.6bn, diverting >>>income from customer bills to pay interest payments."
That is all about UK politics and has no relevance here, unless you
believe everything that has been tried and failed overseas should not
be implemented here.
A key issue with Thames Water is that when it was sold, the new owner
sat back and took little interest in anything other than taking
profits - as much spending as possible was funded by borrowing or
avoided by under-investment. Remind you of NZ Rail? Or even of our >electricity companies which are basing expansion on the minimum
capital required to meet current and short term demand - they have
little interest in more efficient generation as that requires capital
to be used before it is needed; hence we still burn coal in times of
peak demand - the cost just gets picked up by electricity users, not
the shareholders . . .
On 2023-07-01, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I haven't heard that, but 3 Waters is not a privatisation proposal.
On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 11:06:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 23:24:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
https://www.ft.com/content/deaf19d6-8da1-4241-a1e6-2635535de88e
Perhaps privatisation of major utilities is just as much a bad idea in >>>>the UK as it has been in New Zealand with electricity . . .
from that article:
"Ministers have discussed a temporary nationalisation of Thames Water >>>>as investors and the government braced for the potential collapse of >>>>the debt-laden utility.
Wednesday?s contingency planning came a day after the abrupt exit of >>>>Thames Water chief executive Sarah Bentley, who was battling to turn >>>>round a company with a legacy of under-investment and £14bn of debt >>>>just as UK interest rates hit their highest level since 2008.
Shareholders 12 months ago promised to invest £500mn in the company ? >>>>the first equity injection since privatisation ? and pledged a further >>>>£1bn subject to conditions. But the £500mn was only paid this March
and the additional £1bn has never been paid."
and:
"The state of the UK?s water and sewage networks has become a hot >>>>political issue, with attention on pollution and leaks, and questions >>>>over whether the privatised utilities are prioritising shareholder >>>>dividends over investment.
Defra, the environment ministry, held emergency talks with industry >>>>regulator Ofwat to discuss a government-led solution in case the >>>>country?s largest water company was unable to raise private finance in >>>>the coming weeks, according to government officials."
and
"After being sold with almost no debt at privatisation three decades >>>>ago, UK water companies have taken on borrowings of £60.6bn, diverting >>>>income from customer bills to pay interest payments."
That is all about UK politics and has no relevance here, unless you >>>believe everything that has been tried and failed overseas should not
be implemented here.
It is a global economy/world so what is happening, the flavour of the month, >elsewhere on the planet is likely to arrive in NZ.
A key issue with Thames Water is that when it was sold, the new owner
sat back and took little interest in anything other than taking
profits -
Let us just stick to the topic at hand. Water, co-goverance and elites.
I have heard that the proposal for the 3 waters is to borrow and just pay
the interest back, no principle. This will let the Thames Water case play
out again.
How ever this might just be a rumour. I will not surprised if this turns out >to be the case. With the history of the 3 waters/co-governance to date >nothing the future could be anything.
as much spending as possible was funded by borrowing or
avoided by under-investment. Remind you of NZ Rail? Or even of our
electricity companies which are basing expansion on the minimum
capital required to meet current and short term demand - they have
little interest in more efficient generation as that requires capital
to be used before it is needed; hence we still burn coal in times of
peak demand - the cost just gets picked up by electricity users, not
the shareholders . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 11:06:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:In most cases the electricity users are the shareholders. So that's OK then >isn't it?
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 23:24:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
https://www.ft.com/content/deaf19d6-8da1-4241-a1e6-2635535de88e
Perhaps privatisation of major utilities is just as much a bad idea in >>>>the UK as it has been in New Zealand with electricity . . .
from that article:
"Ministers have discussed a temporary nationalisation of Thames Water >>>>as investors and the government braced for the potential collapse of >>>>the debt-laden utility.
Wednesday’s contingency planning came a day after the abrupt exit of >>>>Thames Water chief executive Sarah Bentley, who was battling to turn >>>>round a company with a legacy of under-investment and £14bn of debt >>>>just as UK interest rates hit their highest level since 2008.
Shareholders 12 months ago promised to invest £500mn in the company — >>>>the first equity injection since privatisation — and pledged a further >>>>£1bn subject to conditions. But the £500mn was only paid this March
and the additional £1bn has never been paid."
and:
"The state of the UK’s water and sewage networks has become a hot >>>>political issue, with attention on pollution and leaks, and questions >>>>over whether the privatised utilities are prioritising shareholder >>>>dividends over investment.
Defra, the environment ministry, held emergency talks with industry >>>>regulator Ofwat to discuss a government-led solution in case the >>>>country’s largest water company was unable to raise private finance in >>>>the coming weeks, according to government officials."
and
"After being sold with almost no debt at privatisation three decades >>>>ago, UK water companies have taken on borrowings of £60.6bn, diverting >>>>income from customer bills to pay interest payments."
That is all about UK politics and has no relevance here, unless you >>>believe everything that has been tried and failed overseas should not
be implemented here.
A key issue with Thames Water is that when it was sold, the new owner
sat back and took little interest in anything other than taking
profits - as much spending as possible was funded by borrowing or
avoided by under-investment. Remind you of NZ Rail? Or even of our >>electricity companies which are basing expansion on the minimum
capital required to meet current and short term demand - they have
little interest in more efficient generation as that requires capital
to be used before it is needed; hence we still burn coal in times of
peak demand - the cost just gets picked up by electricity users, not
the shareholders . . .
On 1 Jul 2023 03:50:13 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Karl Marx himself could not have said that better. However, it would still have been nonsense.
On 2023-07-01, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I haven't heard that, but 3 Waters is not a privatisation proposal.
On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 11:06:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 23:24:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
https://www.ft.com/content/deaf19d6-8da1-4241-a1e6-2635535de88e
Perhaps privatisation of major utilities is just as much a bad idea in >>>>>the UK as it has been in New Zealand with electricity . . .
from that article:
"Ministers have discussed a temporary nationalisation of Thames Water >>>>>as investors and the government braced for the potential collapse of >>>>>the debt-laden utility.
Wednesday?s contingency planning came a day after the abrupt exit of >>>>>Thames Water chief executive Sarah Bentley, who was battling to turn >>>>>round a company with a legacy of under-investment and £14bn of debt >>>>>just as UK interest rates hit their highest level since 2008.
Shareholders 12 months ago promised to invest £500mn in the company ? >>>>>the first equity injection since privatisation ? and pledged a further >>>>>£1bn subject to conditions. But the £500mn was only paid this March >>>>>and the additional £1bn has never been paid."
and:
"The state of the UK?s water and sewage networks has become a hot >>>>>political issue, with attention on pollution and leaks, and questions >>>>>over whether the privatised utilities are prioritising shareholder >>>>>dividends over investment.
Defra, the environment ministry, held emergency talks with industry >>>>>regulator Ofwat to discuss a government-led solution in case the >>>>>country?s largest water company was unable to raise private finance in >>>>>the coming weeks, according to government officials."
and
"After being sold with almost no debt at privatisation three decades >>>>>ago, UK water companies have taken on borrowings of £60.6bn, diverting >>>>>income from customer bills to pay interest payments."
That is all about UK politics and has no relevance here, unless you >>>>believe everything that has been tried and failed overseas should not >>>>be implemented here.
It is a global economy/world so what is happening, the flavour of the month, >>elsewhere on the planet is likely to arrive in NZ.
A key issue with Thames Water is that when it was sold, the new owner
sat back and took little interest in anything other than taking
profits -
Let us just stick to the topic at hand. Water, co-goverance and elites.
I have heard that the proposal for the 3 waters is to borrow and just pay >>the interest back, no principle. This will let the Thames Water case play >>out again.
Most current Councils are at or near their borrowing limits. As a
country we do have a debt problem - largely through debt owed by
individuals and private companies - I suspect many of our overseas
owned companies are lightly capitalised. Internally the tax bias
towards property investment has starved many companies of adequate
share capital - many companies are as lightly capitalised as they can
get away with, and our investment in some industries is distorted. Our
level of government borrowing is however less than many other
countries. Recent weather events have highlighted the need for
additional work on water systems - Nick Smith was talking about that
in relation to Nelson recently. There the cost of infrastructure to
restore to what was there is around 85% of their annual rates bill -
they propose to spread that over 10 years, but even so it is a big
increase in rates that is required. He was raising the issue that it
is preferable to restore to higher standards than previous work, and
seeking assistance from government for that. Effectively 3 waters is
the government working with all Councils to make sure that water
issues are sorted using the whole resources of the country, subject to
all other priorities, but not relying solely on rates in individual
areas. Nelson has, like Gisborne and Hawkes Bay, Coromandel and some
parts of Auckland, had severe flood / slip damage that will affect
their ability to pay. Essentially things will go better is we all
cooperate and work together for the benefit of all. Sound good?
How ever this might just be a rumour. I will not surprised if this turns out >>to be the case. With the history of the 3 waters/co-governance to date >>nothing the future could be anything.
as much spending as possible was funded by borrowing or
avoided by under-investment. Remind you of NZ Rail? Or even of our
electricity companies which are basing expansion on the minimum
capital required to meet current and short term demand - they have
little interest in more efficient generation as that requires capital
to be used before it is needed; hence we still burn coal in times of
peak demand - the cost just gets picked up by electricity users, not
the shareholders . . .
On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 04:26:41 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt is the case for NZ power generation. The rest is off topic.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 11:06:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:In most cases the electricity users are the shareholders. So that's OK then >>isn't it?
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 23:24:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
https://www.ft.com/content/deaf19d6-8da1-4241-a1e6-2635535de88e
Perhaps privatisation of major utilities is just as much a bad idea in >>>>>the UK as it has been in New Zealand with electricity . . .
from that article:
"Ministers have discussed a temporary nationalisation of Thames Water >>>>>as investors and the government braced for the potential collapse of >>>>>the debt-laden utility.
Wednesday’s contingency planning came a day after the abrupt exit of >>>>>Thames Water chief executive Sarah Bentley, who was battling to turn >>>>>round a company with a legacy of under-investment and £14bn of debt >>>>>just as UK interest rates hit their highest level since 2008.
Shareholders 12 months ago promised to invest £500mn in the company — >>>>>the first equity injection since privatisation — and pledged a further >>>>>£1bn subject to conditions. But the £500mn was only paid this March >>>>>and the additional £1bn has never been paid."
and:
"The state of the UK’s water and sewage networks has become a hot >>>>>political issue, with attention on pollution and leaks, and questions >>>>>over whether the privatised utilities are prioritising shareholder >>>>>dividends over investment.
Defra, the environment ministry, held emergency talks with industry >>>>>regulator Ofwat to discuss a government-led solution in case the >>>>>country’s largest water company was unable to raise private finance in >>>>>the coming weeks, according to government officials."
and
"After being sold with almost no debt at privatisation three decades >>>>>ago, UK water companies have taken on borrowings of £60.6bn, diverting >>>>>income from customer bills to pay interest payments."
That is all about UK politics and has no relevance here, unless you >>>>believe everything that has been tried and failed overseas should not >>>>be implemented here.
A key issue with Thames Water is that when it was sold, the new owner
sat back and took little interest in anything other than taking
profits - as much spending as possible was funded by borrowing or
avoided by under-investment. Remind you of NZ Rail? Or even of our >>>electricity companies which are basing expansion on the minimum
capital required to meet current and short term demand - they have
little interest in more efficient generation as that requires capital
to be used before it is needed; hence we still burn coal in times of
peak demand - the cost just gets picked up by electricity users, not
the shareholders . . .
I don't think that is the case for either Thames Water or NZ
electricity generation companies, it was certainly not the case for NZ
Rail.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:While many of the shareholders may well use electricity in New
On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 04:26:41 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt is the case for NZ power generation. The rest is off topic.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 11:06:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:In most cases the electricity users are the shareholders. So that's OK then >>>isn't it?
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 23:24:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
https://www.ft.com/content/deaf19d6-8da1-4241-a1e6-2635535de88e
Perhaps privatisation of major utilities is just as much a bad idea in >>>>>>the UK as it has been in New Zealand with electricity . . .
from that article:
"Ministers have discussed a temporary nationalisation of Thames Water >>>>>>as investors and the government braced for the potential collapse of >>>>>>the debt-laden utility.
Wednesday’s contingency planning came a day after the abrupt exit of >>>>>>Thames Water chief executive Sarah Bentley, who was battling to turn >>>>>>round a company with a legacy of under-investment and £14bn of debt >>>>>>just as UK interest rates hit their highest level since 2008.
Shareholders 12 months ago promised to invest £500mn in the company — >>>>>>the first equity injection since privatisation — and pledged a further >>>>>>£1bn subject to conditions. But the £500mn was only paid this March >>>>>>and the additional £1bn has never been paid."
and:
"The state of the UK’s water and sewage networks has become a hot >>>>>>political issue, with attention on pollution and leaks, and questions >>>>>>over whether the privatised utilities are prioritising shareholder >>>>>>dividends over investment.
Defra, the environment ministry, held emergency talks with industry >>>>>>regulator Ofwat to discuss a government-led solution in case the >>>>>>country’s largest water company was unable to raise private finance in >>>>>>the coming weeks, according to government officials."
and
"After being sold with almost no debt at privatisation three decades >>>>>>ago, UK water companies have taken on borrowings of £60.6bn, diverting >>>>>>income from customer bills to pay interest payments."
That is all about UK politics and has no relevance here, unless you >>>>>believe everything that has been tried and failed overseas should not >>>>>be implemented here.
A key issue with Thames Water is that when it was sold, the new owner >>>>sat back and took little interest in anything other than taking
profits - as much spending as possible was funded by borrowing or >>>>avoided by under-investment. Remind you of NZ Rail? Or even of our >>>>electricity companies which are basing expansion on the minimum
capital required to meet current and short term demand - they have >>>>little interest in more efficient generation as that requires capital >>>>to be used before it is needed; hence we still burn coal in times of >>>>peak demand - the cost just gets picked up by electricity users, not >>>>the shareholders . . .
I don't think that is the case for either Thames Water or NZ
electricity generation companies, it was certainly not the case for NZ >>Rail.
On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 11:06:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 23:24:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
https://www.ft.com/content/deaf19d6-8da1-4241-a1e6-2635535de88e
Perhaps privatisation of major utilities is just as much a bad idea in >>>the UK as it has been in New Zealand with electricity . . .
from that article:
"Ministers have discussed a temporary nationalisation of Thames Water
as investors and the government braced for the potential collapse of
the debt-laden utility.
Wednesday’s contingency planning came a day after the abrupt exit of >>>Thames Water chief executive Sarah Bentley, who was battling to turn >>>round a company with a legacy of under-investment and £14bn of debt
just as UK interest rates hit their highest level since 2008.
Shareholders 12 months ago promised to invest £500mn in the company —
the first equity injection since privatisation — and pledged a further >>>£1bn subject to conditions. But the £500mn was only paid this March
and the additional £1bn has never been paid."
and:
"The state of the UK’s water and sewage networks has become a hot >>>political issue, with attention on pollution and leaks, and questions >>>over whether the privatised utilities are prioritising shareholder >>>dividends over investment.
Defra, the environment ministry, held emergency talks with industry >>>regulator Ofwat to discuss a government-led solution in case the >>>country’s largest water company was unable to raise private finance in >>>the coming weeks, according to government officials."
and
"After being sold with almost no debt at privatisation three decades
ago, UK water companies have taken on borrowings of £60.6bn, diverting >>>income from customer bills to pay interest payments."
That is all about UK politics and has no relevance here, unless you
believe everything that has been tried and failed overseas should not
be implemented here.
A key issue with Thames Water is that when it was sold, the new owner
sat back and took little interest in anything other than taking
profits - as much spending as possible was funded by borrowing or
avoided by under-investment. Remind you of NZ Rail?
Or even of our
electricity companies which are basing expansion on the minimum
capital required to meet current and short term demand - they have
little interest in more efficient generation as that requires capital
to be used before it is needed; hence we still burn coal in times of
peak demand - the cost just gets picked up by electricity users, not
the shareholders . . .
On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 15:16:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 11:06:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 23:24:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
https://www.ft.com/content/deaf19d6-8da1-4241-a1e6-2635535de88e
Perhaps privatisation of major utilities is just as much a bad idea in >>>>the UK as it has been in New Zealand with electricity . . .
from that article:
"Ministers have discussed a temporary nationalisation of Thames Water >>>>as investors and the government braced for the potential collapse of >>>>the debt-laden utility.
Wednesday’s contingency planning came a day after the abrupt exit of >>>>Thames Water chief executive Sarah Bentley, who was battling to turn >>>>round a company with a legacy of under-investment and £14bn of debt >>>>just as UK interest rates hit their highest level since 2008.
Shareholders 12 months ago promised to invest £500mn in the company — >>>>the first equity injection since privatisation — and pledged a further >>>>£1bn subject to conditions. But the £500mn was only paid this March
and the additional £1bn has never been paid."
and:
"The state of the UK’s water and sewage networks has become a hot >>>>political issue, with attention on pollution and leaks, and questions >>>>over whether the privatised utilities are prioritising shareholder >>>>dividends over investment.
Defra, the environment ministry, held emergency talks with industry >>>>regulator Ofwat to discuss a government-led solution in case the >>>>country’s largest water company was unable to raise private finance in >>>>the coming weeks, according to government officials."
and
"After being sold with almost no debt at privatisation three decades >>>>ago, UK water companies have taken on borrowings of £60.6bn, diverting >>>>income from customer bills to pay interest payments."
That is all about UK politics and has no relevance here, unless you >>>believe everything that has been tried and failed overseas should not
be implemented here.
A key issue with Thames Water is that when it was sold, the new owner
sat back and took little interest in anything other than taking
profits - as much spending as possible was funded by borrowing or
avoided by under-investment. Remind you of NZ Rail?
A very indirect connection - and so what? A previous Labour
government created this entity as a SOE so any issues are easily
fixed.
Or even of our
electricity companies which are basing expansion on the minimum
capital required to meet current and short term demand - they have
little interest in more efficient generation as that requires capital
to be used before it is needed; hence we still burn coal in times of
peak demand - the cost just gets picked up by electricity users, not
the shareholders . . .
Apart from Contact (that do not burn coal) all those companies are
over50% government-owned. Are you saying that government is incapable
of action on this? You have been asked this on many occasions so
don't bother with the completely lame excuse that the government is
hamstrung by responsibility to minority shareholders (that does not
exist an you cannot cite otherwise). All those who invested in
minority holdings in majority-state-owned-enterprises knew the
real-world implications of that investment.
On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 20:56:38 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Irrelevant - majority shareholders always have the power to force change - your assertion that this case is different is frivolous and idiotic.
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 15:16:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 11:06:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 23:24:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
https://www.ft.com/content/deaf19d6-8da1-4241-a1e6-2635535de88e
Perhaps privatisation of major utilities is just as much a bad idea in >>>>>the UK as it has been in New Zealand with electricity . . .
from that article:
"Ministers have discussed a temporary nationalisation of Thames Water >>>>>as investors and the government braced for the potential collapse of >>>>>the debt-laden utility.
Wednesday’s contingency planning came a day after the abrupt exit of >>>>>Thames Water chief executive Sarah Bentley, who was battling to turn >>>>>round a company with a legacy of under-investment and £14bn of debt >>>>>just as UK interest rates hit their highest level since 2008.
Shareholders 12 months ago promised to invest £500mn in the company — >>>>>the first equity injection since privatisation — and pledged a further >>>>>£1bn subject to conditions. But the £500mn was only paid this March >>>>>and the additional £1bn has never been paid."
and:
"The state of the UK’s water and sewage networks has become a hot >>>>>political issue, with attention on pollution and leaks, and questions >>>>>over whether the privatised utilities are prioritising shareholder >>>>>dividends over investment.
Defra, the environment ministry, held emergency talks with industry >>>>>regulator Ofwat to discuss a government-led solution in case the >>>>>country’s largest water company was unable to raise private finance in >>>>>the coming weeks, according to government officials."
and
"After being sold with almost no debt at privatisation three decades >>>>>ago, UK water companies have taken on borrowings of £60.6bn, diverting >>>>>income from customer bills to pay interest payments."
That is all about UK politics and has no relevance here, unless you >>>>believe everything that has been tried and failed overseas should not >>>>be implemented here.
A key issue with Thames Water is that when it was sold, the new owner
sat back and took little interest in anything other than taking
profits - as much spending as possible was funded by borrowing or
avoided by under-investment. Remind you of NZ Rail?
A very indirect connection - and so what? A previous Labour
government created this entity as a SOE so any issues are easily
fixed.
Or even of our
electricity companies which are basing expansion on the minimum
capital required to meet current and short term demand - they have
little interest in more efficient generation as that requires capital
to be used before it is needed; hence we still burn coal in times of
peak demand - the cost just gets picked up by electricity users, not
the shareholders . . .
Apart from Contact (that do not burn coal) all those companies are
over50% government-owned. Are you saying that government is incapable
of action on this? You have been asked this on many occasions so
don't bother with the completely lame excuse that the government is >>hamstrung by responsibility to minority shareholders (that does not
exist an you cannot cite otherwise). All those who invested in
minority holdings in majority-state-owned-enterprises knew the
real-world implications of that investment.
The electricity generation companies are no longer a Crown entity so
there is no capacity to control them other than in very weak Letters
of Expectation. Government doesn't appoint anyone to their boards.
Whether what they charge is reasonable is set in complex mechanisms by
the Electricity Authority - see https://www.ea.govt.nz/
So the conditions of sale limited future government control - as far
as I am aware the only way out is to buy further shares - presumably
at some stage the government could then exercise greater control.
As far as the rail debacle is concerned yes it was the Lange
government - they had to react to the mess left behind by the Muldoon >National government, but they rushed the sales and did not do them at
all well. It is cold comfort that there had been significant
deterioration by the time they bought it back that the price was
probably less than they had initially received - but then they had to
put a lot more money back in. Even then that work was not continued
by a later National government, who cut back on maintenance of tracks
and the line from Napier to Gisborne has not yet been restored.
On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 06:36:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyThrough the government New Zealanders control most of the generation companies. Therefore in a very real way can decide to force change- That is no different to any majority shareholder of any company. It is such a simple concept that I cannot understand your motivation here.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:While many of the shareholders may well use electricity in New
On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 04:26:41 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt is the case for NZ power generation. The rest is off topic.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 11:06:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:In most cases the electricity users are the shareholders. So that's OK then >>>>isn't it?
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 23:24:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
https://www.ft.com/content/deaf19d6-8da1-4241-a1e6-2635535de88e
Perhaps privatisation of major utilities is just as much a bad idea in >>>>>>>the UK as it has been in New Zealand with electricity . . .
from that article:
"Ministers have discussed a temporary nationalisation of Thames Water >>>>>>>as investors and the government braced for the potential collapse of >>>>>>>the debt-laden utility.
Wednesday’s contingency planning came a day after the abrupt exit of >>>>>>>Thames Water chief executive Sarah Bentley, who was battling to turn >>>>>>>round a company with a legacy of under-investment and £14bn of debt >>>>>>>just as UK interest rates hit their highest level since 2008.
Shareholders 12 months ago promised to invest £500mn in the company — >>>>>>>the first equity injection since privatisation — and pledged a further >>>>>>>£1bn subject to conditions. But the £500mn was only paid this March >>>>>>>and the additional £1bn has never been paid."
and:
"The state of the UK’s water and sewage networks has become a hot >>>>>>>political issue, with attention on pollution and leaks, and questions >>>>>>>over whether the privatised utilities are prioritising shareholder >>>>>>>dividends over investment.
Defra, the environment ministry, held emergency talks with industry >>>>>>>regulator Ofwat to discuss a government-led solution in case the >>>>>>>country’s largest water company was unable to raise private finance in >>>>>>>the coming weeks, according to government officials."
and
"After being sold with almost no debt at privatisation three decades >>>>>>>ago, UK water companies have taken on borrowings of £60.6bn, diverting >>>>>>>income from customer bills to pay interest payments."
That is all about UK politics and has no relevance here, unless you >>>>>>believe everything that has been tried and failed overseas should not >>>>>>be implemented here.
A key issue with Thames Water is that when it was sold, the new owner >>>>>sat back and took little interest in anything other than taking >>>>>profits - as much spending as possible was funded by borrowing or >>>>>avoided by under-investment. Remind you of NZ Rail? Or even of our >>>>>electricity companies which are basing expansion on the minimum >>>>>capital required to meet current and short term demand - they have >>>>>little interest in more efficient generation as that requires capital >>>>>to be used before it is needed; hence we still burn coal in times of >>>>>peak demand - the cost just gets picked up by electricity users, not >>>>>the shareholders . . .
I don't think that is the case for either Thames Water or NZ
electricity generation companies, it was certainly not the case for NZ >>>Rail.
Zealand, far from all shares are so linked to a user of the product,
and in reality the vast majority of electricity users in New Zealand
do not own shares in the generating companies. For most New
Zealanders, they are paying higher electricity charges without the
benefit of income and capital gains from share ownership.
On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 20:56:38 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 15:16:59 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 11:06:17 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 23:24:57 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
https://www.ft.com/content/deaf19d6-8da1-4241-a1e6-2635535de88e
Perhaps privatisation of major utilities is just as much a bad idea in >>>>>the UK as it has been in New Zealand with electricity . . .
from that article:
"Ministers have discussed a temporary nationalisation of Thames Water >>>>>as investors and the government braced for the potential collapse of >>>>>the debt-laden utility.
Wednesday’s contingency planning came a day after the abrupt exit of >>>>>Thames Water chief executive Sarah Bentley, who was battling to turn >>>>>round a company with a legacy of under-investment and £14bn of debt >>>>>just as UK interest rates hit their highest level since 2008.
Shareholders 12 months ago promised to invest £500mn in the company — >>>>>the first equity injection since privatisation — and pledged a further >>>>>£1bn subject to conditions. But the £500mn was only paid this March >>>>>and the additional £1bn has never been paid."
and:
"The state of the UK’s water and sewage networks has become a hot >>>>>political issue, with attention on pollution and leaks, and questions >>>>>over whether the privatised utilities are prioritising shareholder >>>>>dividends over investment.
Defra, the environment ministry, held emergency talks with industry >>>>>regulator Ofwat to discuss a government-led solution in case the >>>>>country’s largest water company was unable to raise private finance in >>>>>the coming weeks, according to government officials."
and
"After being sold with almost no debt at privatisation three decades >>>>>ago, UK water companies have taken on borrowings of £60.6bn, diverting >>>>>income from customer bills to pay interest payments."
That is all about UK politics and has no relevance here, unless you >>>>believe everything that has been tried and failed overseas should not >>>>be implemented here.
A key issue with Thames Water is that when it was sold, the new owner
sat back and took little interest in anything other than taking
profits - as much spending as possible was funded by borrowing or
avoided by under-investment. Remind you of NZ Rail?
A very indirect connection - and so what? A previous Labour
government created this entity as a SOE so any issues are easily
fixed.
Or even of our
electricity companies which are basing expansion on the minimum
capital required to meet current and short term demand - they have
little interest in more efficient generation as that requires capital
to be used before it is needed; hence we still burn coal in times of
peak demand - the cost just gets picked up by electricity users, not
the shareholders . . .
Apart from Contact (that do not burn coal) all those companies are
over50% government-owned. Are you saying that government is incapable
of action on this? You have been asked this on many occasions so
don't bother with the completely lame excuse that the government is >>hamstrung by responsibility to minority shareholders (that does not
exist an you cannot cite otherwise). All those who invested in
minority holdings in majority-state-owned-enterprises knew the
real-world implications of that investment.
The electricity generation companies are no longer a Crown entity so
there is no capacity to control them other than in very weak Letters
of Expectation. Government doesn't appoint anyone to their boards.
Whether what they charge is reasonable is set in complex mechanisms by
the Electricity Authority - see https://www.ea.govt.nz/
So the conditions of sale limited future government control
- as far
as I am aware the only way out is to buy further shares - presumably
at some stage the government could then exercise greater control.
As far as the rail debacle is concerned yes it was the Lange
government - they had to react to the mess left behind by the Muldoon >National government, but they rushed the sales and did not do them at
all well. It is cold comfort that there had been significant
deterioration by the time they bought it back that the price was
probably less than they had initially received - but then they had to
put a lot more money back in. Even then that work was not continued
by a later National government, who cut back on maintenance of tracks
and the line from Napier to Gisborne has not yet been restored.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 125:00:12 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,849 |