Even if it goes badly shareholders get dividends

Thanks tortes, thanks thatcher. Thanks

That's what they call : " Corruptalista Capitalista..Asta Lavista, Give me my Dividents Baby."! 🤗😳😱

The people always get the bill. Its corporate socialism.

@@dc6807 many of the controlling interests are offshore investment funds. Good luck looking for tax revenue from them!

You'd think that we'd have a public resources provider wouldn't you. A means to get the very basics to sustain human life, ie water and electricity. Allowing these necessities to be privatised gives control to corporate giants to decide costs for their benefit and in cases like thames water put people at risk.

Yep. The didn’t tell that to the masses during the Brexit debacle.

Laughable. 🤣🤣🤣

Well said!!

Should've voted for Corbyn then

Never vote to privatise water. The crooks will take over and install meters.

There is no competition and it's not just London, it's across the UK. Every water company runs water for a section of the country and there is no overlap, so if they tenfold the price, there's nothing you can do. Unlike energy, you can't switch, but that said, the energy market collapsed and now there is no one to switch to, since all the little competition have just died. Privatisation improves quality. I mean, we can't pretend water as we have it now would be what it is if it was under government control, since there's no way the government would fund it properly for improvement. But privatisation increases cost and exposes it to turd like this. That said, if we're being absolutely honest, privatising meant money is being tipped into shareholders' pockets, which is terrible, but publicly owned just means the money would be tipped into ministers and theirs cronies' pockets, which is equally as terrible. If anyone here thinks publicly owned means this wouldn't happen, then wow, which rock have you been living under? A six figure salary after two years results in an offshore bank account holding tens of millions, like yeah, that totally adds up, because that offshore account is held by their wife's sister's boyfriend's pet dog's chew toy.

You misunderstand big time..... is a "competition for the profits"... .. think finance...

@@DanteLovesPizza No its not across UK. Scottish water is in public ownership, and with no shareholders to pay is over 5Bn in the black.

@@DanteLovesPizza I think the pizza has addled your brain.

@@markwilkie3677 No, you misunderstand. My comment on "across the UK" referred to a monopoly and there is no competition for water supply. If you're supplied by Scottish Water, you don't have an alternative supplier. It's the same across the UK, water suppliers don't overlap each other's territories.

As long as people keep voting for neoliberal parties, they will keep privatising core public infrastructure (and underfunding that which they can't privatise). Keir Starmer and Ed Davy won't do what's necessary and bring in legislation to re-nationalise water, energy & public transport, and until someone does things will keep declining.

It's almost like it makes no sense to privatize a service company of public interest.

That's because privatisation is used to funnel our money into the pockets of the already wealthy.

They know you'll accept it not that you've got a choice

@@danielwood2901 Labour are just as bad and you know it

I think you should be prime minister lol

Thing is though, they might be beneficiaries but they aren't in charge of how the money is divvied up. It's the board of directors that essentially bribe the investors in order to get them to agree to big pay awards for themselves.

That’s how it works in the world. Oh and massive regulatory failure and governments ignoring it all.

​@@nicholasdickens2801government's don't ignore it! They are the problem! They do not represent the population anymore! They represent themselves & their interests as has allways been.

@@nicholasdickens2801 happily here in Scotish Water is publicly owned still. Money made is reinvested and not paid out to shareholders.

A recipe for waste and inefficiency. Look at the state the NHS, just imagine every public service being in the same mess ?

@@jjefferyworboys8138it’s inefficient with privatisation too. They have invested almost nothing since privatising Thames water. It’s called milking the asset - the government gave them public assets at pennies to the pound then let them milk those assets into worthlessness. If that’s what’s you call efficiency, count me out.

That's how the UK works.

Of course you must. you were born to serve to Tories

because we keep voting for them, silly

​@@julianshepherd2038thats how the corruption works is more accurate

​@@brerhare9118 Well generally the majority of the electorate hasn't voted Tory. It's the first past the post system that allows them to stay in power.

I'm neither for nor against privatisation, because I see the good and bad of both sides, but have you ever imagined what state run water supply would be like in the UK? I live in an area supplied by Northumbrian Water. I would consider the price dear, but their water quality is normally voted top in the UK. At the same time, UK water quality is usually considered to be top 5 in the world. This literally means, despite from a small town, the water supply I get is top 5 in the world. This is what privatisation has brought. There's absolutely no way I'm getting this water quality if this supply was run by the government, I'm beyond certain on this.

@@DanteLovesPizza Top 5 water 🙄 im sure some remote african region can do better without infrastructure and pesticides in their soil and seriously these day advanced country recycle sewage water what "quality" are u talking about

@@petitpoucet8113 You can take that up with professionals that actually measure water quality. Or maybe you're unaware of the rest of the world's circumstances and take it for granted. Talk about being privileged, ey?

It already is privatised you planks!!

@@DanteLovesPizzawell great- Thames water was privatised 40 years ago though..

A recipe for waste and inefficiency.

​@@jjefferyworboys8138yep, more reasons it should be public.

Greggs?

​@@jjefferyworboys8138stop repeating your dumbfuck opinion everywhere without backing it up.

Railways too.

@@YA-hm5zy The British approach to railways is uniquely weird. You buy a ticket from A to take a train operated by B, owned by C, maintained by D, operating on rails maintained by E. B gets a local monopoly, which they purchase from the government.

@@vylbird8014 it's just how many ways can we cut this pie. They have absolutely sucked everything out of the British public in every area. While making themselves very rich. The service is an absolute joke.

you mean like communism ?

@@888ssss no. Communism isn’t central government supply of essential services to its people. It’s just common sense. Communism is the propagation of everyone being the same, this is not what I am saying. Democracy and capitalism can work, with industry that its supposed to work with, but when it comes to public essentials, the police, hospitals, water and sewerage, energy, and everything else that comes with it, this is no place for private companies to make profits for shareholders. It’s paid from the taxes of those capital gains from companies, private taxpayers and it should be used to deliver the essential services that the people rely on with no profits being the goal. It should be taxes to meet the needs of the people and private companies run by the people.

Yep. Hold each shareholder, regardless of size liable for the debt. Own 1% of Thames water? Congrats you own £660mn of debt. If they had any backbone they’d make it unbankruptable like student debt.

Debt of a service company of public interest is a public problem.

@@gnhonho Who lent them the money? They must have been insane.

@@SA-ff9uc on the contrary, it's guaranteed money back. The water company cannot go under, people need water.

@@SA-ff9uc The owners loan the money to the company, which is used to offset tax, which means the owners get paid three times, and the company pays no tax. Profits go into offshore accounts of the owners, the owners receive loan installments plus interest, and finally, dividends. It's win, win, win, and the only losers are the customers and the treasury.

@@SA-ff9uc here, here. Take it back and don't pay the "investors" a dime.

Incorrect, they have been private since 1989, Thames Water has been sold and re-sold several times since then, the most recent was in 2006.

Not when the companies have managed to kill off the population, such that the government realises that the population figures are dropping off like flies.... and that they are no longer MPs. Cos there are no people to provide water with !!! So yeh.. you would think that the penny finally drops !

Thatcherism is eating its tail now.

B - R - E - X - S - H - I -T

Tories.

It seems, from a distance, that you are governed by psychopaths.

@@mildlydispleased322113 years of ‘em

Maggie said private companies knew better how to handle business than state owned who had a habit of wasting money. A classic example would be the NHS . It’s easy to spend other people’s money sorry I mean tax payers money! What Maggie didn’t bank on was the corporate greed and sheer incompetence.

I remember back in the late 70's very early 80's demonstrating against all this. The crazy part is the vast majority of Tory voters were ordinary every day workers - oh well we've got what they voted for.

I think the Tories were running out of things to privatise at the time. She was stealing from tomorrow, knowing she'd be dead by the time it all went wrong.

@@dc6807 Tell yourself why they are in debt? They gave 60 billion to shareholders and now want us to fund their corruption. The corruption is mindblowing

The leakage rate from Thames Water pipes is the highest for five years and the company will not meet its target to plug them this year, according to information released under freedom of information laws.

Yep totally useless. Im sure it made a nice slide on an investor relation presentation a few years ago though…

And yet this government (and many others) is unable to run itself, let alone adding more and more public infrastructure to their list of responsibilities. Rock and hard place comes to mind.

@@mjrc123 I agree that the current government is a bunch of bumbling fools, but the infrastructure itself wouldn't be run by politicians, but rather by professionals in that industry. This was always the case, the government is like a merry go round, always changing. Public ownership comes with its own issues without a doubt. But it also comes with advantages.....A major positive difference being that shareholders wouldn't skim money off of the top constantly. Any money generated could be invested back into the infrastructure, not sucked out of it. 71 billion paid out in dividends for the water industry since privatisation, 64 billion of debt run up...... now imagine how much better the infrastructure would be if that 71 billion had been invested into it? Yes we would still have that debt, but we might just have a functional system to show for it. Instead we have what will be a huge public debt and a collapsing water system, that'll cost another how ever many billion to fix.....

No, you are right. In fact in many private companies, if their debt rises faster than their profits, they withhold dividend payments. Which obviously makes it less attractive of an investment but it reflects the real world situation of a company that aims to survive. The fact that they took out debt to service their dividends strikes me as a core corruption issue. They never intended to make the company survive, they just wanted to pay themselves as much as possible and make the public pay off the debt.

Yes there seems to be a pattern over the last few decades doesn't there?😮

@@dc6807 "SA Water is a successful, modern water utility that is wholly owned by the Government of South Australia. We employ more than 1,400 South Australians across a broad range of disciplines who operate over $14 billion of assets. We deliver essential water and sewerage services to more than 1.7 million South Australians." Seems to work...

@@dc6807 Everything would get upgraded, and work for the people not for the profits though. Under privatisation it's all profit not for the people. Water companies shouldn't be allowed to get away with this.

@@dc6807 The companies themselves should pay for it. If they had the funds. Clearly Thames Water doesn't although this pictures a much bigger picture as to which water firm is next. Ultimately in a working democracy, with things working for people I would be fine if taxpayers money was used to upgrade the infrastructure we rely on so much. it becomes a problem when taxpayers money goes to dividends and shareholders.

@@dc6807 The £4.1bn project designed to clean up the Thames by preventing more than 95% of sewage spills. While the project is based in London, its benefits extend beyond the city, including a healthier ecosystem, positive impacts on wildlife, tourism, and the economy, and the introduction of new processes and technologies. Plus the Govt already said they would step in if it goes above that amount.

@@dc6807 While it is understandable to have concerns about the cost of the project, it is important to consider the long-term benefits it will bring such as those I just mentioned.

Shareholders who don't receive dividends tend not to remain shareholders and without investors the company has no future.

@@jjefferyworboys8138 So make services and infrastructure publicly owned... Profits go back into the service, as it should do.

@@TassieLorenzo Google and read the Clifford Chance report into nationalising Water. Very eye opening.

I love his grilling of these fat cats

The alternative is to let the business fail and then deal with the fall out. When its something as essential as water failure isn't an option.

@@jjefferyworboys8138 Then the bailout package needs to be in exchange for equity being returned to the British Government.

I look at Brexit and think that too!

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 YES

Me too. Unfortunately it’s been cleverly transferred to overseas private equity/pension funds which just extract rent from UK citizens without delivering any innovation or investment

Its called moral hazard. They have no incentive to run a well functioning and successful company in the conventional sense because they, like the banks, know that they will be either bailed out or taken into public ownership. They cut back investment, milk the dividends and load up the debt knowing full well that the Government will step in once it all goes sour. This is exactly what privatisation was and is all about. Not competition or sustainability, just getting the boy's snouts in the trough for an all you can eat feast.

Yes, he was very good today.

The leakage rate from Thames Water pipes is the highest for five years and the company will not meet its target to plug them this year, according to information released under freedom of information laws.

We will see what happens with Scottish water. They said they don't discharge sewage into rivers and they do. Why else is there personal hygiene products and a bad smell on the clydebank

Who is Darren Jones?

@@andyjosiah4951 Bristol MP interviewed in the video.

Yes, Tory lies.

Cuz in some way after decades of massive dividends to enrich a few shareholders, private sector in the west today is more kin to "socialism to the ultrarich" than an actual free capitalist market

All the money made gets paid to shareholders in dividends

For Thames Water

Not all businesses are successful. The NHS is hardly a success story for public ownership ?

@@jjefferyworboys8138 you think it’s publicly owned…..? Have a look into its management post Thatchers free market economy

It’s a win-win for them.

The alternative is to let the business fail, it's only water and who needs that ?

The alternative is to regulate them properly and stop them taking profits and dividends if they're not doing their job properly, before it gets to this point.

@user-rq5sd1sq8o For one thing, having debt can be great for tax efficiency.

​@user-rq5sd1sq8onothing wrong there then no? The rich just stay rich and the tax payers who just shut up and just keep paying

@@dc6807 This is a corporation, not an individual, so different tax laws apply. But same basic problem. When dealing with large enough sums of money, hiring accountants to 'tax-optimise' the organisation is cheaper than paying the un-optimised taxes.

😂😂😂😂😂

Similar story from me.

@@dc6807 I called them in advance abt that and they told me to pay in one go….

I think that is the governments strategy, make living conditions for everyone in the UK so bad that no one will want to come here anyway.

They drive me round the bend