Pants on Fire!

[MikeJhn]

That can't be so in this land of illogical thinking - as all crows are black, God can't be black unless she is a crow.

But on reflection I suppose that is as likely as anything else though.

And it all accords to what she identifies herself as.

 

[mudman]

[Bold bit is another straw man.]
For perspective, I am most certainly not a green freak.
(My Mrs and I are "car people" and up until now, we owned 3 cars all of which are performance-oriented in nature and deliver less than 20mpg on average - I'm changing one of them to a BEV - but we're keeping the other 2 high-output CO2 machines - and happily paying whatever the price is for our devotion of worshipping at the altar of the performance car.)

On the topic of anti-EV or anti-CO2-reduction, etc.. I guess you haven't encountered the vehemence with which all things interconnected with "green" are reviled, attacked and "anti'd" by lobby groups (of the >right wing variety), and that much of that revilement gets echo'd by people claiming the passed-down frankly ridiculous claims - some of which we've even seen on this forum. For example it has been written here that "renewable electricity is more expensive" (a proven lie) and that reducing CO2 will "harm the economy" and that tackling climate change will "harm the least well off the most" - all of which is simply misinformation - and what is more, and this exceptionally important to acknowledge - the misinformation is precipitated from right wing sources. Some of which are in truth anti-EV - which you quite rightly describe as "not wanting the transition" and "not wanting any of the thing produced". <- This is a reality.

How is that a straw man? I gave my opinion of how I see you acting whenever a view is put forward that you disagree with. If I'm wrong, then fair enough, but address the point and show me how I am wrong rathjer than trying to show how much of an intellectual you are with your knowledge of classical rhetoric.

To reiterate my point, what you perceive as 'anti' are more questioning with a lot of unanswered questions. I believe that there are actually very few completely 'anti' green initiatives. There are probably a fair few that question what the point of net zero is when the global effect of the UK achieving net zero is so small, and I would say that these people are from both sides of the political debate. The response from such as yourself that ignores such questions seems to be bold statements of everything being lies and accusing all who are questioning of being rabid right-wingers.

Not quite sure why you have gone off on your final rant but no, I haven't 'encountered the vehemence with which all things interconnected with "green" are reviled, attacked and "anti'd" by lobby groups (of the >right wing variety)', can you provide examples? I do wonder if they are as vicious as you imply.

By the way, "and what is more, and this exceptionally important to acknowledge - the misinformation is precipitated from right wing sources." Why do you think this? I really don't think it matters what the source is except for people such as yourself to hold it up as evidence of the evilness of right-wing thinking. The importance is to look at what people are saying and if you disagree, then disagree, but provide reasonable evidence for why you disagree. At the moment, your whole position seems to be that anything proposed by the right wing is wrong and bad and must be opposed.
The whole question of climate change and how we, as a global whole, can solve the problem is one of the most pressing and difficult problems that mankind has ever faced, and reducing it to left v right and arguing about who said what is not going to solve it.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

How is that a straw man? I gave my opinion of how I see you acting whenever a view is put forward that you disagree with. If I'm wrong, then fair enough, but address the point and show me how I am wrong rathjer than trying to show how much of an intellectual you are with your knowledge of classical rhetoric.

To reiterate my point, what you perceive as 'anti' are more questioning with a lot of unanswered questions. I believe that there are actually very few completely 'anti' green initiatives. There are probably a fair few that question what the point of net zero is when the global effect of the UK achieving net zero is so small, and I would say that these people are from both sides of the political debate. The response from such as yourself that ignores such questions seems to be bold statements of everything being lies and accusing all who are questioning of being rabid right-wingers.

Not quite sure why you have gone off on your final rant but no, I haven't 'encountered the vehemence with which all things interconnected with "green" are reviled, attacked and "anti'd" by lobby groups (of the >right wing variety)', can you provide examples? I do wonder if they are as vicious as you imply.

By the way, "and what is more, and this exceptionally important to acknowledge - the misinformation is precipitated from right wing sources." Why do you think this? I really don't think it matters what the source is except for people such as yourself to hold it up as evidence of the evilness of right-wing thinking. The importance is to look at what people are saying and if you disagree, then disagree, but provide reasonable evidence for why you disagree. At the moment, your whole position seems to be that anything proposed by the right wing is wrong and bad and must be opposed.
The whole question of climate change and how we, as a global whole, can solve the problem is one of the most pressing and difficult problems that mankind has ever faced, and reducing it to left v right and arguing about who said what is not going to solve it.

Daily Mail have an anti-EV agenda

When you say "question the point of net zero", I reckon you are being economical. Questioning the point of net zero is a very valid behaviour. I fully support that activity. What really is not a valid behaviour is to use a platform of extreme privilege (wealth, lobby money and media ownership) to infect the landscape of discourse with deliberate misinformation and disinformation, and to even give "equal weight" to the minority of dissenting "expert" voices perpetuating those misinformation and disinformation stories for onward transmission by media.

I've already covered above, for example the deliberately perpetuated lie that renewable energy is "more expensive" than fossil energy. This observation is not "my opinion". After all, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool worshipper of not just ICE vehicles, but ICE vehicles that are inefficient on purpose. I go to car meets, make noise in my car getting there, and generally accelerate for fun. I sometimes drive on tracks. For fun. And in doing so, return 8mpg of 99RON fuel. Probably less. I make a lot of tyre chirrup-ing noises and create a great deal of high-performance-brake-pad brake dust. I'm a luddite. I don't really like the thought of the death of performance ICE. Makes me sad. But as you say:

"The whole question of climate change and how we, as a global whole, can solve the problem is one of the most pressing and difficult problems that mankind has ever faced"

I totally agree. 100%. We're facing a tipping point of potential mass extinctions.

However, when you say:

"reducing it to left v right and arguing about who said what is not going to solve it."

...my take is that this is being overly simplistic.

All one has to do is to map out where the misinformation and disinformation and "climate denial" is originated to be able to see in absolute stark truth that the multitudinous "climate denial" agendas and "anti-green" lobbies are 100% being pushed from right wing sources. It's an observation. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not an opinion. It's not an "argument". It's observable reality. An incontrovertible truth. Case in point is (extreme-) right wing Trumpian Policies: drill-baby-drill, extract from Paris Accords, and abolish the entire EV agenda. Not just abandon an EV mandate or water it down a bit. Entirely demolish it altogether.

If people were being a bit more fair to what I was saying, instead of faux offence, I'm never did suggest all crows are black. The observation was that all of the anti-green, anti-net-zero and anti-EV is from the right. Not that all right of centre individuals are anti-EV. That is the classic straw man. Of course there are "right of centre" individuals who are not climate deniers. I am aware and fully endorse. I am yet to encounter any single "left of centre" organisation or individual of platform that perpetuates the climate denial agenda. It would be very, very obvious to identify if there were, since it would be an extreme outlier. A leftist who also is a climate denier? Doesn't that just jump out as an oxymoron to all who read this? It does to me...

I also don't use a starting point of saying - you are obviously a righty, so you must be a climate denier.
It's the other way around. Oh, I see that you have views indicating you may be a climate denier, which means you are probably lean towards the right. (and probably more than just a bit to the right).

 

[DrPhill]

privatisation of public services is a precursor to its withdrawal, rather than positive recognition the private sector may do some, most, or even all things better

You are right, let’s look at the successes
Privatized water for example. Thames water.
Privatised rail, for example East coast rail and Southeastern rail
Privatised energy companies supplying Gas and Electricity.
All amazingly successful.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

You are right, let’s look at the successes
Privatized water for example. Thames water.
Privatised rail, for example East coast rail and Southeastern rail
Privatised energy companies supplying Gas and Electricity.
All amazingly successful.

Read the post - I said some, most or even all. Want examples of shining government managed projects:

• HS2 - grossly over time and cost
• Scottish Parliament - likewise
• Cross rail - more of the same
• Hinckley Point
• Government regulation - a large part of the failures you identify are Government failures
• PFI deals - often expensive and poorly negotiated terms
• Time and cost of resolving major issues - Post Office, contaminated blood, R3 Heathrow etc

IMHO the public sector, like the private, has significant strengths and weaknesses. Success will come from through knitting the best of both to deliver the best outcomes.

Blaming public sector failures on political interference, or private sector failures on shareholder greed is grossly simplistic. Dogma driven dismissal of either leads to seriously sub-optimal outcomes

 

[DrPhill]

Read the post - I said some, most or even all. Want examples of shining government managed projects:

• HS2 - grossly over time and cost
• Scottish Parliament - likewise
• Cross rail - more of the same
• Hinckley Point
• Government regulation - a large part of the failures you identify are Government failures
• PFI deals - often expensive and poorly negotiated terms
• Time and cost of resolving major issues - Post Office, contaminated blood, R3 Heathrow etc

IMHO the public sector, like the private, has significant strengths and weaknesses. Success will come from through knitting the best of both to deliver the best outcomes.

Blaming public sector failures on political interference, or private sector failures on shareholder greed is grossly simplistic. Dogma driven dismissal of either leads to seriously sub-optimal outcomes

My initial goal was to allow you to remove the 'if not all' from your claim by providing examples.
It is widely acknowledged that private comapanies are more efficient - for some definition of 'efficient'. In the case of many of them this seems to be 'efficient at extracting value for shareholders and board members from the assets of the company'.
Many of these privatisations show either huge incompetence or willing connivance by the governments that created them, so I won't argue against your comments on 'the government'.
I would much rather see the resources owned by society managed a little incompetently, than see them efficiently stripped of value and loaded with debt by privateers.

Some background:

From the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66051555
"When the company was privatised in 1989, it had no debt. But over the years it borrowed heavily and is currently £15.2bn in debt, by one measure.
(..................)
Analysts say Thames Water's current debt amounts to about 80% of the value of the business, making it the most heavily indebted of England and Wales' water companies."

From the independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ration-nationalise-bills-labour-b2685605.html
"Thames Water has warned the government that it faces bankruptcy if it is not allowed to raise bills by more than agreed with regulator Ofwat. The UK’s biggest water company will put it’s prices up by 35 per cent over the next five years, down from the 53 per cent that was requested.
(...........)
If Thames Water goes bankrupt, the government would be forced to carry out some form of nationalisation.
(...........)
However, the move could also force the government to take on Thames Water’s £16bn debt pile."

So, privatised industry paid huge amounts of boneses and dividends, raised loans using the company as capital, and are now likely to go bankrupt leaving the tax payer with a £16bn bill. Exceptionally efficient private industry.......

Also covered in the times: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politic...ptcy-after-stalemate-with-regulator-r8rx2h8l3
S&P downgrades Thames Water debt further into ‘junk’ territory: https://www.ft.com/content/4c55608a-bfe2-4761-95e6-e8e57e4fdc94

 

[Terry - Somerset]

My initial goal was to allow you to remove the 'if not all' from your claim by providing examples.
It is widely acknowledged that private comapanies are more efficient - for some definition of 'efficient'. In the case of many of them this seems to be 'efficient at extracting value for shareholders and board members from the assets of the company'.
Many of these privatisations show either huge incompetence or willing connivance by the governments that created them, so I won't argue against your comments on 'the government'.
I would much rather see the resources owned by society managed a little incompetently, than see them efficiently stripped of value and loaded with debt by privateers.

Some background:

From the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66051555
"When the company was privatised in 1989, it had no debt. But over the years it borrowed heavily and is currently £15.2bn in debt, by one measure.
(..................)
Analysts say Thames Water's current debt amounts to about 80% of the value of the business, making it the most heavily indebted of England and Wales' water companies."

From the independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ration-nationalise-bills-labour-b2685605.html
"Thames Water has warned the government that it faces bankruptcy if it is not allowed to raise bills by more than agreed with regulator Ofwat. The UK’s biggest water company will put it’s prices up by 35 per cent over the next five years, down from the 53 per cent that was requested.
(...........)
If Thames Water goes bankrupt, the government would be forced to carry out some form of nationalisation.
(...........)
However, the move could also force the government to take on Thames Water’s £16bn debt pile."

So, privatised industry paid huge amounts of boneses and dividends, raised loans using the company as capital, and are now likely to go bankrupt leaving the tax payer with a £16bn bill. Exceptionally efficient private industry.......

Also covered in the times: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politic...ptcy-after-stalemate-with-regulator-r8rx2h8l3
S&P downgrades Thames Water debt further into ‘junk’ territory: https://www.ft.com/content/4c55608a-bfe2-4761-95e6-e8e57e4fdc94

I largely agree with the analysis of the failure of Thames Water. Exploitation of their privileged monopoly position was evident almost from the outset post privatisation.

Whilst I expect the Government to take over day to day operations if they finally fail, I hope this does not extend to taking over the loan obligations. Those who were so foolish as to invest in an obviously a high risk venture should carry the can for their own mis-judgements.

It is a gross failure of regulation which allowed them the abuse - a regulator appointed by government. It is a joint deficiency of Tory and Labour governments, both of whom had over 12 years to ensure that the regulatory remit and regulators were capable of meeting the challenge.

They failed. They have also failed in the:

• energy sector - extensive bail outs following Ukraine conflict energy price increases. They failed to understand companies offering cheap energy deals without covering energy purchases carried an unacceptably high financial risk.
• sewage pollution - low consumer bills and inflation targets took priority over adequate infrastructure investment - end result was entirely predictable
• rail - but don't really expect better performance post nationalisation - it is IMHO a lost cause
• 2008-10 banking crisis - international dimension but failures due to a lack of regulatory competence - insufficient knowledge of loan quality underpinning bonds, poor bank stress tests, links between "casino" and commercial/consumer banking etc.

 

[DrPhill]

I largely agree with the analysis of the failure of Thames Water. Exploitation of their privileged monopoly position was evident almost from the outset post privatisation.

Whilst I expect the Government to take over day to day operations if they finally fail, I hope this does not extend to taking over the loan obligations. Those who were so foolish as to invest in an obviously a high risk venture should carry the can for their own mis-judgements.

It is a gross failure of regulation which allowed them the abuse - a regulator appointed by government. It is a joint deficiency of Tory and Labour governments, both of whom had over 12 years to ensure that the regulatory remit and regulators were capable of meeting the challenge.

They failed. They have also failed in the:

• energy sector - extensive bail outs following Ukraine conflict energy price increases. They failed to understand companies offering cheap energy deals without covering energy purchases carried an unacceptably high financial risk.
• sewage pollution - low consumer bills and inflation targets took priority over adequate infrastructure investment - end result was entirely predictable
• rail - but don't really expect better performance post nationalisation - it is IMHO a lost cause
• 2008-10 banking crisis - international dimension but failures due to a lack of regulatory competence - insufficient knowledge of loan quality underpinning bonds, poor bank stress tests, links between "casino" and commercial/consumer banking etc.

And I largely agree with you...... apart from you pessimism about rail. Other countries have made it an efficient part of their transport infrastructure. Why cant we?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Rail subsidies are largest in China ($130 billion), Europe (€73 billion) and India ($35.8 billion) ...

Someone once said railways were a 19c answer to an 18c problem.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Subsidies
UK government operating subsidies to the rail industry in the year to April 2024 totalled £12.5bn Operating subsidies. In addition a further £9.6bn was paid for enhancements including HS2.

Passenger revenue was £11bn.

Overall subsidies seem broadly in proportion to a European comparator yet we perceive the quality of services to be lower and the fares higher. Something is materially wrong.

Possible problems
One possibility is that much of the infrastructure is Victorian - a credit to the original builders but expensive to maintain, fails to meet modern passenger expectations, and reflects major deficiencies in investment over the years. Much of Europe had the good fortune (???) of war and rebuilding.

Another may be a fundamentally inefficient or incompetent operation beset with resistance to change, overly burdensome administration and regulation, costs associated with separate management structures for train services, track, and rolling stock.

Needs honest and objective analysis, which may be at variance with preconceived outcomes.

The future
I am not convinced rail is part of a strategic transport future, save for commuter traffic in and around major urban areas where alternatives may cause congestion and/or pollution. The nature of work has also changed with online shopping growing fast and an expectation of WFH.

• it seems an economically very expensive way to transport people and goods from A to B.
• it seems unlikely ever to be truly competitive even if issues are properly identified and solved - comparison with road transport needs to take into account taxation on fuel and VAT
• comparison of alternative transport modes are often engineered to give desired outcome - eg: "terminal to terminus" rather than "door to door" - an exercise in self delusion.
• goods transport is largely inefficient as it multiplies product handling and needs goods yards - often now alternatively used for parking, commercial or housing.
• early in the lifetime of any major new rail investment, autonomous vehicles will supplant rail for goods delivery using vehicles with capacities appropriate to the goods carried,
• the nature of car ownership will evolve - "cars/pods" will be summoned by smartphone app providing "door to door" service with digitally managed "trains" on longer routes.

 

[Jake]

Whilst I expect the Government to take over day to day operations if they finally fail, I hope this does not extend to taking over the loan obligations. Those who were so foolish as to invest in an obviously a high risk venture should carry the can for their own mis-judgements.

The problem with Thames and some of the other water companies is that they are very financially engineered. Thames itself doesn't own any of the utility assets, those belong to subsidiaries. Thames only has rights to dividends, but then it has leveraged those income streams with more debt at its level. But the opco subsidiaries (and so all the infrastructure assets) are ring-fenced within a securitisation structure. If Thames goes bust, the opco noteholders (lenders at the opco level) will accelerate those notes and take possession of the actual water business. This means the government can't just let Thames go bust and take over / renationalise the water supply in the Thames area, it will still be owned by other investors.

 

[mudman]

Daily Mail have an anti-EV agenda

And I think you have a far-left wing agenda but that link is irrelevant. I really can't be bothered to dig into the full background of what a left wing mouthpiece is saying about a right wing mouthpiece. I suspect it is a case of bending the truth and misrepresenting facts on both parts but it doesn't prove that all views 'anti' come from the right. You have provided a single piece of opinion but it doesn't prove anything.

When you say "question the point of net zero", I reckon you are being economical.

What?

Questioning the point of net zero is a very valid behaviour. I fully support that activity.

How very kind of you but you have neglected to include the complete point that was 'There are probably a fair few that question what the point of net zero is when the global effect of the UK achieving net zero is so small' I think that is important.

What really is not a valid behaviour is to use a platform of extreme privilege (wealth, lobby money and media ownership) to infect the landscape of discourse with deliberate misinformation and disinformation, and to even give "equal weight" to the minority of dissenting "expert" voices perpetuating those misinformation and disinformation stories for onward transmission by media.

Maybe so, but you are going off on a tangent, in fact, I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here. How does this prove or relate to your assertion that all 'anti' views come from the right wing?

I've already covered above, for example the deliberately perpetuated lie that renewable energy is "more expensive" than fossil energy. This observation is not "my opinion".

There you go again with that word 'lie'. Is everything you disagree with a lie? The statement is likely to be an opinion based on evidence. However, I would like to see that evidence before I accept that statement. I agree that the actual generation of electricity from wind power will be virtually zero cost but has everything else been factored in? For example, has the cost of retaining gas fired power stations been included? Is there a cost associated with the numbers of birds killed? Has the lifespan of these generators and the disposal costs been included? There are always factors that have not been considered in any conclusion, until then, it is a conclusion supported by the available evidence.

After all, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool worshipper of not just ICE vehicles, but ICE vehicles that are inefficient on purpose. I go to car meets, make noise in my car getting there, and generally accelerate for fun. I sometimes drive on tracks. For fun. And in doing so, return 8mpg of 99RON fuel. Probably less. I make a lot of tyre chirrup-ing noises and create a great deal of high-performance-brake-pad brake dust. I'm a luddite. I don't really like the thought of the death of performance ICE. Makes me sad. But as you say:

Again, so what? What does that prove?

"The whole question of climate change and how we, as a global whole, can solve the problem is one of the most pressing and difficult problems that mankind has ever faced"

I totally agree. 100%. We're facing a tipping point of potential mass extinctions.

Glad we agree on something.

However, when you say:

"reducing it to left v right and arguing about who said what is not going to solve it."

...my take is that this is being overly simplistic.

Huh? What's overly simplistic?

All one has to do is to map out where the misinformation and disinformation and "climate denial" is originated to be able to see in absolute stark truth that the multitudinous "climate denial" agendas and "anti-green" lobbies are 100% being pushed from right wing sources. It's an observation. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not an opinion. It's not an "argument". It's observable reality. An incontrovertible truth. Case in point is (extreme-) right wing Trumpian Policies: drill-baby-drill, extract from Paris Accords, and abolish the entire EV agenda. Not just abandon an EV mandate or water it down a bit. Entirely demolish it altogether.

So you've documented this have you? Fancy sharing?

If people were being a bit more fair to what I was saying, instead of faux offence, I'm never did suggest all crows are black.

Actually, not all crows are black and quite frankly, I'm not really sure what you are saying apart from you not liking right wing sources and that you seem to be

The observation was that all of the anti-green, anti-net-zero and anti-EV is from the right. Not that all right of centre individuals are anti-EV. That is the classic straw man. Of course there are "right of centre" individuals who are not climate deniers. I am aware and fully endorse. I am yet to encounter any single "left of centre" organisation or individual of platform that perpetuates the climate denial agenda. It would be very, very obvious to identify if there were, since it would be an extreme outlier. A leftist who also is a climate denier? Doesn't that just jump out as an oxymoron to all who read this? It does to me...

And I think you are wrong. There are people on both left and right of the political spectrum that take umbrage with what this and previous governments are doing with the head long dash to net zero. But, and it's a big but, they aren't necessarily anti-green, zero or EV. You are doing the classic thing hearing someone say that they don't want an air-sourced heat pump because it wouldn't be suitable for their property and then extrapolating it to mean that they are dead against all things green/net zero/EV. It isn't like that, people are questioning some of the decisions as they realise that it isn't as simple as saying we should get rid of all ICE vehicles or that all properties should move to heat pumps. There will of course be some that don't believe in what is happening to the world and will be truly 'anti' everything but again, I think you'll find them all along the political spectrum.

I also don't use a starting point of saying - you are obviously a righty, so you must be a climate denier.
It's the other way around. Oh, I see that you have views indicating you may be a climate denier, which means you are probably lean towards the right. (and probably more than just a bit to the right).

Was that last bit directed at me? If so, then it indicates that you have already come to a conclusion about me that is pretty much wrong and politically, I think you would be very surprised at which way I lean.

 

[Jacob]

......

It is entirely possible for someone right of centre to be supportive of green energy, the NHS, immigration, decent education, social fairness etc. I would include myself in that group.

Yes there are many who think of themselves on the right but recognise that society can't run without socialism. Trouble is they want to keep it to a minimum which means a lot of people live on the edge with low wages/benefits, insecurity, high rents etc. loosely referred to as the precariat

Characterising opinions on topics which have little or no political relevance as solely left or right evidences an arrogance that ones own views form a consistent body of "truth". Nonsense.

Truth has nothing to do with it - it's about what you have to do to keep things working, for the many not the few.

 

[Spectric]

Apparently a lot of the so called gen z brigade don't support our current system of rule and are more in favour of a dictator without elections so who knows whether the Uk will become ruled by some dictator or the 51st state of the USA in the years ahead !

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The problem with Thames and some of the other water companies is that they are very financially engineered. Thames itself doesn't own any of the utility assets, those belong to subsidiaries. Thames only has rights to dividends, but then it has leveraged those income streams with more debt at its level. But the opco subsidiaries (and so all the infrastructure assets) are ring-fenced within a securitisation structure. If Thames goes bust, the opco noteholders (lenders at the opco level) will accelerate those notes and take possession of the actual water business. This means the government can't just let Thames go bust and take over / renationalise the water supply in the Thames area, it will still be owned by other investors.

You are right that the debt structures are heavily engineered and the legal basis for the outcome rather unclear. I don't know the precise terms of the TW internal agreements, nor do I know the terms of the licence or regulatory regime under which they operate.

I suspect it will be fertile ground for the legal profession to resolve, probably taking many years, cost mega bucks and involve countless court cases and appeals.

But in extremis I suspect it would be possible for the government to legislate to simply take over all the assets involved in water supply in a very clear public interest.

That the bond holders may bitch would not be a barrier. And why would the bondholders even want to take over the obligations of a fundamentally bankrupt Thames Water?

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Yes there are many who think of themselves on the right but recognise that society can't run without socialism. Trouble is they want to keep it to a minimum which means a lot of people live on the edge with low wages/benefits, insecurity, high rents etc. loosely referred to as the precariat

Truth has nothing to do with it - it's about what you have to do to keep things working, for the many not the few.

No one seems able to convincingly/consistently define "socialism" as a political philosophy. AFAIK it has never worked anywhere despite apparently being the answer to all problems besetting mankind (need to be careful not to upset women, those who identify differently etc).

Alternatively "socialism" is simply society choosing to do that which generally benefits society as a whole. It has nothing to do politics - defining it in terms of "left" or "right" is empty rhetoric.

Thus it is entirely possible for the political "right" to be supportive of action to benefit a community, and for those on the "left" to endorse private enterprise and self interest.

 

[Jacob]

No one seems able to convincingly/consistently define "socialism" as a political philosophy.

Does it need a definition? Loose descriptions are possible - along the lines of "actions taken by society for the common good" etc

AFAIK it has never worked anywhere

It seems to work almost everywhere. There are no societies where the members each live as though they are lone Robinson Crusoes, without cooperating to some extent. Some on the right think this is possible but there's not much to show for it.

despite apparently being the answer to all problems besetting mankind

according to your arbitrary definition plucked out of the air

(need to be careful not to upset women, those who identify differently etc).

don't be silly!

Alternatively "socialism" is simply society choosing to do that which generally benefits society as a whole.

Yes that'll do

It has nothing to do politics

It is utterly central to politics
"Politics (from Ancient Greek πολιτικά (politiká) 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of status or resources."

- defining it in terms of "left" or "right" is empty rhetoric.

Nobody "defines" them either way. They are generic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_political_spectrum#:~:text=Origins in the French Revolution,-5 May 1789&text=The terms "left" and ",the revolution to his left.

Thus it is entirely possible for the political "right" to be supportive of action to benefit a community, and for those on the "left" to endorse private enterprise and self interest.

Yes of course.
The big divide is between those who fear redistribution of wealth/property and those who see no alternative. But no governments anywhere have ever operated without taxation in one form or another. At its most extreme rate, 100%, with slavery, whereby the oligarchy own everything/everybody including all they produce.
Property was the main issue raised by those resisting the extension of democracy and the franchise, throughout British history.
There is still massive imbalance but it's early days!
I've often wondered if the Scots would ever set about reclaiming their lost land (the clearances) as they are into Robby the Bruce type heroes.
We had the theft of the commons, still ongoing.
We had Robin Hood! We've now got Guy Standing - well worth a read: https://www.guystanding.com/current-projects

 

[Jake]

You are right that the debt structures are heavily engineered and the legal basis for the outcome rather unclear. I don't know the precise terms of the TW internal agreements, nor do I know the terms of the licence or regulatory regime under which they operate.

I know they are - I've read them (well the publicly available ones) for work reasons.

I suspect it will be fertile ground for the legal profession to resolve, probably taking many years, cost mega bucks and involve countless court cases and appeals.

Probably.

But in extremis I suspect it would be possible for the government to legislate to simply take over all the assets involved in water supply in a very clear public interest.

Everything is possible, but that would be expropriation from the opco noteholders so the Govt would end up paying for them (or probably rather for the NPV of the opco debt and interest as that's the extent of their security interest). Thames would have a claim for any surplus as shareholder.

That the bond holders may bitch would not be a barrier.

They aren't going to bitch, they are just going to accelerate the notes and enforce against the secured assets (which means the water business).

And why would the bondholders even want to take over the obligations of a fundamentally bankrupt Thames Water?

They wouldn't but the point is they won't have to. Thames Water's debts at the parent co level are irrelevant to them and they do not attach to the regulated water business. The noteholders will just seize the opcos and their assets from Thames because it going bankrupt will be an event of default under their notes. And why they would want to do that is obvious, they've lent a hell of a lot of money to the opcos and they want to be repaid.

It's a complete mess of a structure from a public interest point of view and should never have been permitted by OFWAT (although they may have needed to be given more powers to be able to prevent it).

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I know they are - I've read them (well the publicly available ones) for work reasons.

Probably.

Everything is possible, but that would be expropriation from the opco noteholders so the Govt would end up paying for them (or probably rather for the NPV of the opco debt and interest as that's the extent of their security interest). Thames would have a claim for any surplus as shareholder.

They aren't going to bitch, they are just going to accelerate the notes and enforce against the secured assets (which means the water business).

They wouldn't but the point is they won't have to. Thames Water's debts at the parent co level are irrelevant to them and they do not attach to the regulated water business. The noteholders will just seize the opcos and their assets from Thames because it going bankrupt will be an event of default under their notes. And why they would want to do that is obvious, they've lent a hell of a lot of money to the opcos and they want to be repaid.

It's a complete mess of a structure from a public interest point of view and should never have been permitted by OFWAT (although they may have needed to be given more powers to be able to prevent it).

You are right that it is a complete mess.

Thames Water Utilities Limited is the regulated part of the mess. To judge from their accounts (company, (not the consolidated ones) they:

• collect the revenues,
• the balance sheet shows the assets including £19bn of property plant and equipment
• they own 100% of the shares of Thames Water Utilities Finance Limited
• they owe TWUF £13.7bn - the balance being bank loans et

TWUF balance sheet shows:

• intercompany loans of £15.1bn (mainly TWUL)
• £14.8bn of borrowings - bank loans and bonds.

Perhaps I am an optimist. Although TWUF are not directly regulated, they are reliant upon the cash flow from TWUL to repay their loans. Even If loans are secured against assets, TWUF have neither the employees to operate them, nor physical or direct legal control over them.

If TWUL are bankrupt, the receiver would normally seek to sell either the company or assets to repay the creditors - I recall there is an order of precedence where HMRC is at the top.

It is unlikely TWUF would recover more than a small percentage of outstanding loans on receivership of TWUL. TWUF, unless they agreed to an arrangement would likely be declared insolvent and simply placed in receivership.

The overriding need is to keep water customers supplied. Whether compensation need be paid seems open to question - arguments could take a decade through the courts. It needs a government with resolve - popular support would almost certainly be forthcoming!

 

[Jake]

If TWUL are bankrupt, the receiver would normally seek to sell either the company or assets to repay the creditors - I recall there is an order of precedence where HMRC is at the top.

TWUL and TWUF are both in the opco part of the structure. The insolvency issue is another layer up from that at Thames Water Limited. TWL is also highly leveraged, so as to juice the returns for shareholders, and with interest rates having gone up it can't now service the debt from the income streams it receives from the opcos. Flatten the structure by taking TWL out of it (along with its debts) and and the business is probably financially viable again.

It is unlikely TWUF would recover more than a small percentage of outstanding loans on receivership of TWUL. TWUF, unless they agreed to an arrangement would likely be declared insolvent and simply placed in receivership.

This isn't the scenario here.

The overriding need is to keep water customers supplied. Whether compensation need be paid seems open to question - arguments could take a decade through the courts. It needs a government with resolve - popular support would almost certainly be forthcoming!

I agree with that being the overriding need. It's a very difficult situation though and there's no obvious route to getting the assets back into public ownership without a huge amount of public spending, the opco securitisations really salted the well. I'd like it to be otherwise. Hopefully a way through will be found - it would be a fascinating mandate to advise on, not sure who has got it but I imagine one of the magic circle firms.