Maybe not:On point 1, creating a UK water company is fine. The points of offering them a deal and fine them to resolve issues would fall down at the very first legal hurdle, and agreeing to sell them at 50% market value won't even begin at a conversation as most investors in these companies will have other investments in the country. Plus also any re-nationalisation of a water company needs 25 years notice if their license is being removed.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/10/how-could-englands-water-system-be-fixedDr Ewan McGaughey, a professor of law at King’s College London, argues England should join Scotland, Wales, Paris and most of the world, and restore public ownership using the legal framework of special administration that already exists.
This can be triggered if companies are unlikely to be able to pay their debts without public subsidies or have seriously breached their duties, for example by failing to improve their pipes to stop leaks or failing to drain and clean sewers to stop pollution.
Once in special administration, the companies can be transferred to a new publicly owned entity. Responding to the criticism that paying off shareholders and debts would cost too much, he argues the current law allows for debts to be reduced or even removed if they infringe on the water company’s ability to properly carry out its legal duties.
Richard Murphy, of the Corporate Accountability Network and Sheffield University, argues the water companies are in effect environmentally insolvent because they do not have the financial means to raise the £260bn needed to stop their sewage dumping, according to a House of Lords assessment. Therefore no compensation is due to shareholders, or to those who lent money to the companies.
But Murphy said in order to be pragmatic, a small offer to shareholders and a reasonable offer to secured creditors would be required to take the companies back into public control using the special administration rules.
The cost of nationalisation would run into billions – all of which could be paid for by the issue of government bonds.
To raise capital for the future of the publicly owned industry, the public could be offered the chance to buy a bond paying 4% or more in the long term to last for at least 70 years. For the first 15 years the return would be guaranteed by the government, encouraging the public to buy the bonds at scale and fund much of the required investment the industry needs over time.
Dieter Helm, a professor of economic policy at Oxford University, says the privatised industry has “run into the sands” and what is required is systemic change focusing on sustainability, water conservation and a catchment system of regulation to tackle pollution at its source.
Helm does not support re-nationalisation, but he does dismiss the often-repeated view that to take water back into public control would cost too much.
“The one objection to nationalisation which has little merit is that it would cost the government a lot. This is nonsense,” says Helm. Re-nationalisation, he argues, would involve swapping the regulatory asset-based debt (RAB) for government bonds. “The government would gain the assets and the RABs and swap utility debt for Treasury debt,” he says.
.Third of voters believe Starmer was wrong to let Elphicke into Labour Party
More voters believe Keir Starmer was wrong to allow a rightwing Tory MP into Labour than think it was the right move, after anger from within the party’s ranks over the defection.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...e-labour-party-opinium-poll-tory-mp-defection
On levels that would make Liz Truss economics look like childs play.Also the current 25 years' limit is a piece of UK legislation, which can be changed. The market and private finance would react, sure. That's a political calculation and would involve a lot of reassurance that we are not going to renationalise anything else.
Again it just baffles me at those angrily debasing themselves in defense of Kier Starmer debasing hisself, and pretending that theirs is the grown up, willing to compromise position. When they are the fringe.In latest Opinium poll, only 16% say accepting rightwing Tory MP’s defection was the right move. Third of voters believe Starmer was wrong to let Elphicke into Labour party
Nationalising/expropriating water companies would also have unintended victims, eg the university pension scheme owns 20% of Thames Water.I’m gonna throw out two ideas I’d love a Labour Party to use, but no idea how genuinely feasible it would be, so gonna run it up the flagpole here:
1. To renationalise water
2. Temporary NHS waiting list resolution
- Create UK Water Co
- Arrange a meeting with the heads of each of the water companies
- Offer them a deal
- We empower OFWAT to fine then £10,000,000 per day until they resolve issues. This’ll cripple them and run down their stock value, at which point UK Water buys them out.
- Companies agree to sell up at 50% market value
Would both be even remotely workable?
- Arrange a medial agreement with EU, to allow the free movement of medical professionals between UK and EU
- As part of this, agree with nations to use EU members’ medical capacity to fast track outstanding appointments (essentially make Turkey Teeth a temporary government policy)
- Subsidise travel and accommodation for those who agree to it
- Start with younger, orthopaedic issues (usually day surgeries, in and out within 24hrs
1. That’s completely fairNationalising/expropriating water companies would also have unintended victims, eg the university pension scheme owns 20% of Thames Water.
Wouldn't freedom of movement for medical staff risk the UK losing more staff to EU countries than they can attract?
I guess necessity was such a big driver, given the decimation to housing in WWII and later baby boom. The UK population was 50m in 1950 vs nearly 70m now, plus life expectancy was 66 for men/70 for women in 1951, compared to 78.6m/82.6w in 2024.1. That’s completely fair
2. Yes it would, I’d hopefully be able to convince them to stay, showing this as step 1 of a program to return the NHS to former glory
I just don’t understand how, after WWII, we were able to magically build the NHS and social housing despite how broke the country was, yet all we hear is how fragile things are.
I doubt that would happen. Freedom of movement wasn't quite as useful for UK healthcare staff, I (rightly) couldn't turn up to Germany or France for instance without a medical level knowledge of the language and a process to get certification for their regulatory body.Nationalising/expropriating water companies would also have unintended victims, eg the university pension scheme owns 20% of Thames Water.
Wouldn't freedom of movement for medical staff risk the UK losing more staff to EU countries than they can attract?
Absolutely. Plus it would be politically difficult domestically most likely too, with even the most targeted, sensible freedom policy guaranteed to have Braverman and her ilk screaming betrayal.I doubt that would happen. Freedom of movement wasn't quite as useful for UK healthcare staff, I (rightly) couldn't turn up to Germany or France for instance without a medical level knowledge of the language and a process to get certification for their regulatory body.
In terms of EU staff in the NHS previously, it was mostly Spanish, Portuguese, Greek, Polish and Romanian I would say.
Its an interesting idea but I have to be honest, I see no reason why the EU would agree to it. The NHS are currently going on massive hiring sprees for doctors from across the subcontinent, Egypt, Western Africa and Nepal etc too.
https://x.com/TorstenBell/status/1770103836595601623?t=4IFexJt98VvI-2K3iAk9dQ&s=19Apparently it's debatable that we are in a housing crisis in the way most people interpret that. We have as many houses per capita as we did decades ago. The problem caused by too many landlords and too many empty properties.
https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeand...risingly-simple-solution-to-uk-housing-crisis
We need a government to address that issue, and increase social housing, not just build more so that landlords can increase their portfolios and let others pay their mortgages for them.
Yes the one thing we can all agree on is we need more coal mines (by the way, well done for putting the time into going through 15 years of my old posts to try to make a point, I have to respect that.)
The post war nationalisations were funded by trading shares for government bonds. So it didn't cost anything up front. The UKs debt increased significantly as bonds are essentially a long term iou. But that was offset by the fact they now owned all the assets of that industry.1. That’s completely fair
2. Yes it would, I’d hopefully be able to convince them to stay, showing this as step 1 of a program to return the NHS to former glory
I just don’t understand how, after WWII, we were able to magically build the NHS and social housing despite how broke the country was, yet all we hear is how fragile things are.
So we cannot do anything about the failures of the private sector then.On levels that would make Liz Truss economics look like childs play.
And the NHS of then didn't cater for half of what the NHS does nowI guess necessity was such a big driver, given the decimation to housing in WWII and later baby boom. The UK population was 50m in 1950 vs nearly 70m now, plus life expectancy was 66 for men/70 for women in 1951, compared to 78.6m/82.6w in 2024.
Why should I take the word of someone who hasn't backed up what he's saying with any evidence, as far as I can see from that thread?
I think there is something in saying that in a society where family units are shrinking then maintaining a similar per capita ratio of housing does indicate a shortage. Happy to be corrected on that though.Why should I take the word of someone who hasn't backed up what he's saying with any evidence, as far as I can see from that thread?
Torstens view is oversupply to reduce demand. Make it less profitable to hoard or rent out property. Have landlords compete for tenants rather than the other way round.
As you mentioned, freedom of movement benefitted more the UK than any other country. Everybody knows or wants to learn english and uk haa among the most competitive salaries in europe meaning that they were bleeding out the other countries of young and/or qualified workers. At the same time, the eldery with its medical conditions were spending their retirement years in sunnier countries which seriously put pressure on housing price as tgey outcompete locals and and spend a lot of resources to the local NHS. True that there was transfers between countries about these costs, but you cant compensate for the waiting times provoked.I doubt that would happen. Freedom of movement wasn't quite as useful for UK healthcare staff, I (rightly) couldn't turn up to Germany or France for instance without a medical level knowledge of the language and a process to get certification for their regulatory body.
In terms of EU staff in the NHS previously, it was mostly Spanish, Portuguese, Greek, Polish and Romanian I would say.
Its an interesting idea but I have to be honest, I see no reason why the EU would agree to it. The NHS are currently going on massive hiring sprees for doctors from across the subcontinent, Egypt, Western Africa and Nepal etc too.
It also has a terrible impact on the environment.Torstens view is oversupply to reduce demand. Make it less profitable to hoard or rent out property. Have landlords compete for tenants rather than the other way round.
It has a negative impact on house prices though so it's avoided. If a policy was implemented that set property to real value, then anyone with a mortgage, or anyone relying on their "assest" to fund their golden years will be fecked.
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/housing-outlook-q1-2024/Why should I take the word of someone who hasn't backed up what he's saying with any evidence, as far as I can see from that thread?
I think we need to do all those things, but first and foremost we need to build many more houses in the places people want to live. Eg if that means London becomes a skyscraper city, then so be it.It also has a terrible impact on the environment.
The government need to invest in a care system for the elderly that negates the need for people to 'invest' in properties and take them out of the market for the people who would actually want to live in them.
They need to regulate the private landlords - perhaps tax them out of existence - and act to remove properties from their portfolios and move some of them into public ownership and the rest back on to the market for people to make homes in rather than money with. Because the lack of regulations on this has directly resulted in the mess we're currently in.
People are being fecked right at this moment though - new housebuyers, people wanting to start families, tenants looking to rent, rising homelessness. We need to build.Torstens view is oversupply to reduce demand. Make it less profitable to hoard or rent out property. Have landlords compete for tenants rather than the other way round.
It has a negative impact on house prices though so it's avoided. If a policy was implemented that set property to real value, then anyone with a mortgage, or anyone relying on their "assest" to fund their golden years will be fecked.
Says the MP paid over 6 grand by GB News in just the last ten months, it clearly doesn't cost too much buy Jenkyns' lobbying powerTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
"common sense" is 2024's most popular right wing dogwhistle
Sounds like you are advocating for the government to build.... Albeit a ton of care / retirement homes?It also has a terrible impact on the environment.
The government need to invest in a care system for the elderly that negates the need for people to 'invest' in properties and take them out of the market for the people who would actually want to live in them.
They need to regulate the private landlords - perhaps tax them out of existence - and act to remove properties from their portfolios and move some of them into public ownership and the rest back on to the market for people to make homes in rather than money with. Because the lack of regulations on this has directly resulted in the mess we're currently in.
Actually it's the opposite, it's the trying to tax landlords out of existence that has increased rents by about 10% a year since they started. We now realise the market functioned, just about, before they started getting involved. Now it's well and truly fecked.It also has a terrible impact on the environment.
The government need to invest in a care system for the elderly that negates the need for people to 'invest' in properties and take them out of the market for the people who would actually want to live in them.
They need to regulate the private landlords - perhaps tax them out of existence - and act to remove properties from their portfolios and move some of them into public ownership and the rest back on to the market for people to make homes in rather than money with. Because the lack of regulations on this has directly resulted in the mess we're currently in.
But what will prevent the skyscraper cities becoming simply a collection of stacks of investments owned by overseas landlords extracting the wealth of those people who need to live there? There's zero sign that any government wants to do anything to address that issue.I think we need to do all those things, but first and foremost we need to build many more houses in the places people want to live. Eg if that means London becomes a skyscraper city, then so be it.
But why not show us the evidence that backs up his statement and leave us without doubt?https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/housing-outlook-q1-2024/
It's Torsden Bell so I going to be confident he's done the maths.
Yes, you're right with your first point, and I had considered the fact that landlords will most likely pass on any more modest tax on to the tenant. That's why we need a more radical solution. Rent controls/caps being a first step, perhaps.Actually it's the opposite, it's the trying to tax landlords out of existence that has increased rents by about 10% a year since they started. We now realise the market functioned, just about, before they started getting involved. Now it's well and truly fecked.
The government needs to understand private rentals are a key part of the housing market and not something to be eradicated.
Not necessarily a taxing issue, it's more about the rise of Air BnB and similar.Actually it's the opposite, it's the trying to tax landlords out of existence that has increased rents by about 10% a year since they started. We now realise the market functioned, just about, before they started getting involved. Now it's well and truly fecked.
The government needs to understand private rentals are a key part of the housing market and not something to be eradicated.
I don't have a problem with limiting the amount of "rental investment" that an overseas buyer can make. Those are details. The basic problem is lack of properties in the first place, which governments like to try to then "solve" with stupid financial approaches that either subsidises prices or worsens them, but doesn't actually address supply.But what will prevent the skyscraper cities becoming simply a collection of stacks of investments owned by overseas landlords extracting the wealth of those people who need to live there? There's zero sign that any government wants to do anything to address that issue.
Prioritising the build first does not go any way to solving these problems and is likely to exacerbate others.
I think there is a lot of evidence that price controls don't work (via rent controls). Subsidies don't work (via Help to Buy). Both those are just ways to not to actually address the problem, which is a lack of supply of houses. Just build more houses! Build a million a year for the next 5 years. Think of all the problems it'd solve.Yes, you're right with your first point, and I had considered the fact that landlords will most likely pass on any more modest tax on to the tenant. That's why we need a more radical solution. Rent controls/caps being a first step, perhaps.
Because it's just a twitter thread, his evidence is in the reports from the Resolution Foundation, which is his organisation. I put a link to one in FYI.But why not show us the evidence that backs up his statement and leave us without doubt?
But you're not thinking of the massive problems that can cause, when we usually have developments that concentrate soley on housing, so that local amenities and roads on the outskirts that are already at capacity get overwhelmed. And because of this, locals object to developments and nothing happens for years. And this is on top of the loss of green spaces and damage to the environment.I think there is a lot of evidence that price controls don't work (via rent controls). Subsidies don't work (via Help to Buy). Both those are just ways to not to actually address the problem, which is a lack of supply of houses. Just build more houses! Build a million a year for the next 5 years. Think of all the problems it'd solve.
I'd say that bringing the existing care homes and similar facilities into public ownership and removing the profit from the chain would probably be sufficient as a first step.Sounds like you are advocating for the government to build.... Albeit a ton of care / retirement homes?
I agree the govt needs needs to make it far easier to build, so the market can supply the housing there is clearly the demand for.
I read it and he seems to be making totally different points, mainly about the cost, size and quality of our housing, relative to other countries and nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the ownership of the properties. We already know British houses are smaller and older than those in the US etc.Because it's just a twitter thread, his evidence is in the reports from the Resolution Foundation, which is his organisation. I put a link to one in FYI.
Why are they? And to what end? How many private rented homes should there be?Actually it's the opposite, it's the trying to tax landlords out of existence that has increased rents by about 10% a year since they started. We now realise the market functioned, just about, before they started getting involved. Now it's well and truly fecked.
The government needs to understand private rentals are a key part of the housing market and not something to be eradicated.
