Down the Drain

I found this interesting. I already read some time ago about the massive dividends paid to shareholders. This article explains the mechanism and compares it to Scottish Water which has remained state owned.

**LINK**

400 views and no replies. I’m surprised of that. But it has been known for years that what was sold off was virtually given away and is really only there as a profit making enterprise (the Verny healthy dividends paid to the shareholders and top brass crud)

I worked for Anglian Water pre and post privatisation and yes the industry did need investment, but I asked the question at various forums in the lead up "who come first customer or shareholder?" they didn't answer me.

I know that shareholders are not generally hugely wealthy top hatted landed gentry but are companies that are looking after and investing our pensions, but I have always felt uneasy about selling off essential services such as water, electricity etc.

I sort of get competition but as an Anglian Water customer I do not have a choice of getting my water from Severn Trent...so in effect there is no competition.

Its all well and good fining companies for polluting rivers with sewage, but all that happens is they pass on the costs of this fine to us the poor old customer. So we end up paying for their incompetence.

We should pass a law to require discharges and leaks to be reduced by say 10% every year. If this target is not met, no shareholder dividend, no directors bonus.

And if the monitoring equipment is 'out of order' it is assumed there is a discharge taking place. Not that I'm suggesting any sharp practice

Edited By duncan webster on 10/08/2023 14:21:06

Sounds good to me. I think one boss got £4.5 million last year?

Two gripes.

1 ) Our utilities should not be in the control of other countries. Does no one fear being held to ransom? (Note the problems from a certain "Military Operation" is having on energy and grain supplies

2 ) It seems that those running a company can set their own remuneration package, and not always to the benefit of the workers, shareholders, or customers.

Must stop before ik becomes political!

Too often, it seems that greed rules, rather than service.

Howard

I thought the main reason for privatisation was to enable governments to raid the utilities pension schemes, after all who would want a final salary pension when they could have one provided by the big insurance companies?

I understand that the railway schemes were the only ones not ransacked.

When a train operating company fails to provide a decent service or goes broke, its operations are grabbed back into the nationalisation fold.

If the same scheme were applied to the UK s worst performing water business, wonder if the rest would 'pull their socks up'?

I wholeheartedly agree with what's previously said, to bring all utilities back 'in house' not for any political/ideological reason but simply so that us, their customers, get to have a bigger say in how they're run.

'Privatisation' seemed a good idea at the time but one area where it's all gone wrong, is elec., water, railways have ended up owned by foreigners with no accountability to us mugs who do the paying ('through the nose' to feather nest their shareholders. Dividends at any price and stuff how much real crap goes down our rivers.