INTERESTING No need to compensate the millionaires... Ed acknowledge his statements DECLARE THE COST OF FIXING ON THE LIABILITIES And NO COSTS

🧐

Vote Fergal

(1) I grew up listening to the Fergal Sharkey, and I love him to bits, but I wish he’d shut up with this populist nonsense. The government can’t force water companies into liquidation, as it would cause far reaching problems for the economy

(2) Many of our pensions funds have shares in these companies, so retirees pensions would be negatively impacted. It would cause a crisis of confidence in the stock markets, & reduce inward investment. Shareholders would take legal action that would cost us in legal fees & payouts for years ahead.

Note to 'shareholders'...The value of your investment can go *down* as well as up

Fergal Sharkey - not a cabbage.

Water — vital to all life — should never be in private hands.

Ed, friend of George Osbourne, married to Cooper , that Ed ? Well I'm sure he's an unbiased presenter NOT so I'll pass watching .

Watch Wilf Frost, son of David, he’s a much better journalist. He explained to Fergal much more effectively why this can’t be done. youtu.be/rS-FPUk2-KY?...

It's not Balls doing the explaining, it's Feargal Sharkey.

I know that but I won't watch Balls interviewing as if he's a journalist .

It’s essential - compare and contrast to every other Country.

Effortlessly demolishing the water industry's straw man arguments. Well done Fergal!

and it should be done as a higher priority than nationalising the railways because privatisation of water in the UK has been a greater failure than the privatised railways

plus you can choose to travel in different ways to the train (or even use certain rail companies over others in certain areas), but you can't switch which water company you use without moving house as they are basically regional monopolies

Fergal rams it at the dogma toting front man. Go Fergal, no retreat.

Don't you just love Feargal Sharkey 🥰🥰🥰🤣🤣🤣

I seem to remember the Labour government nationalised Railtrack in the late 1990s with no compensation to shareholders...Byers was the transport secretary.

Railtrack wasn’t privatised under the same framework as the water companies!

Didn't do the same under emergency measure with Scunthorpe Steel owned by the Chinese recently, do the same to water

Thatcher privatized public utilities. It never seems to get mentioned... a national disaster... thanks Margaret

Ok, so why won’t Labour renationalise. Please please, proper answers only. Don’t say “because water companies bunged the Labour Party money”. I’m not interested. I want a real answer?

Probably, because it can't be done on the cheap, despite people saying "do it for a pound" or whatever. If there was a simple way to acquire all the assets at zero cost they would have done it. There would be legal challenges lasting years, all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Feargal Sharkey says this is not true.

Does he have any more expertise in company law etc. than anyone else? Can he cite legal opinion from a KC on it? If so, whom? "Feargal Sharkey says this isn't true" isn't a good enough reason for the government to proceed on a huge undertaking like that.

He may well be right on that but it would almost certainly be tested in court. How long would that take..?

You can. The water companies fail to meet the'fit and proper' test for company finances. That allows everyone to state ownership at zero cost to the taxpayer. Labour is both clueless and gutless.

That’s not helpful. I want a proper reasonable discussion like I just asked for.

I was paraphrasing Sharkey, so what isn't helpful?

I know what he said that wasn’t the question? If you can’t answer the question with substance, jog on back to X

As Ed Balls points out, it’s unrealistic to view the companies as valueless or drive them into bankruptcy. They will have value which will need to be paid for. Even if the £100bn figure is unrealistic, it’ll still be 10’s £bns + £100bn for infrastructure. Nationalisation itself will solve nothing.

Fergal Sharkey explains it well: bsky.app/profile/38de...

That’s not a viable solution. He’s advocating changing the rules to drive them out of business then picking them up for free, not only wouldn’t that happen due to the rules setup around the water industry (we’d be liable for £bns in debt) but it would kill off desperately needed investment in the UK

Thanks for responding. Admittedly I don't understand the details. Would love to see how Fergal would respond. Does this mean that despite their near bankruptcy situation they are still worth £bns? How could that be? Thanks for trying to explain. I am not sure if I understand.

The company has assets, those assets don’t lose value because of debt. In normal insolvency the assets are often undervalued and an agreement is reached with creditors to receive a reduced amount, rather than nothing from the purchasers. The water regs still allow that to happen, but only if 1/3

The govt passes it to another private company. If the govt keeps hold of it, then they are obliged to purchase the assets for a fair price & absorb the full debt value. 2/3

Added to which, even if Fergal’s plan were viable, a govt that actively drives a sector bankrupt by changing the rules, would kill any other investment in the country because why would people risk investing where the govt just steals from people?

I think it is because of the cost of upgrading the infrastructure. The system has not been maintained properly and no new reservoirs have been built. That will cost billions that we don’t have on top of NHS/police/Ed. That’s why private investors are needed.

At last the elephant in the room has been exposed by a common sense view. By keeping the privatised companies responsible for raising the essential money to fulfill their contracts and upgrade the failed systems, stringent enforcement of the regulations must be taken.

We (the consumer) are going to pay for it either way, increased water charges to private companies, or to the government you decide?

There is no gov money and no a wealth tax won’t do it. The new private money going in 104bil will go some way to upgrading the systems. Yes we might have increased bills but if the new regulators have teeth we should start seeing improvements.

By 'government' I meant via tax increase i.e. a water tax, etc.

Of course we’ll all agree but poll after poll says, we want better public services but we don’t want to pay for it?

Oh yes, I remember. "Please, please, proper answers only". I gave you one - Labour is spineless and gutless. If you disagree, tell me why, but don't tell me to go back to a platform I have never used.

You don't need to spend billions on an insolvent company!

No one needs to spend billions to buy companies that are essentially bust.

Indeed. The asset is worthless

So any thoughts after nationalisation where the £100bn of required capital investment is going to come from ? 🤔

The same place as it comes from now. (but at lower interest rates).

Well the recent move for the Government to borrow the extra £113bn they are investing in infrastructure pushed up 10yr gilt rates by quite an amount, increasing overall government interest payments, so trying to borrow another £100bn I guess would be challenging 🤔

Why would the state compensate companies that have demonstrated that they are incapable of operating without dumping sewage in our seas and rivers?

sounds like a plan,