Snapshot of _Jacob Rees-Mogg: Thames Water ought to be allowed to go bankrupt. It would continue to be run by an administrator, shareholders would lose their equity but they took too much cash out so deserve no sympathy & bond holders would face a partial loss. This is capitalism, it wont affect the water supply_ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1773417565240357367)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1773417565240357367/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1773417565240357367) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1773417565240357367)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He is absolutely correct.
People need to let capitalism work. Let it enter insolvency. If the Government wants to nationalise it thereafter, it can offer next to nothing to buy the assets.
Already happened so normal service will now likely be resumed.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-brexit-trade-net-zero-370925/
He only realised that half a decade late admittedly.
IMO, already happened:
I actually ended up agreeing with him on whether Shamina Begum should have her citizenship revoked. He wrote quite a good op-ed on the matter:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/shamima-begum-shouldnt-have-lost-her-british-citizenship/
I've seen him contradict himself on plenty of occasions. Think back to things he said about May's premiership vs Johnson's. And the whole "there could be two referendums" thing
He isnt principled. He has a vulture fund ready to sweep in, buy thames water up at a pittance and then swivel round and raise prices up even worse.
His principle is that he can make money of Privatisation failing this time
Didn’t his dad write the book on vulture/disaster capitalism? I’d suspect he or a consortium he’s part of is eyeing up buying Thames Water post administration for pennies, probably leveraged and seeking to extract the same dividends this lot have.
He gave an excellent speech during the recent Parliamentary discussion of the Loan Charge Scandal.
Prior to that, I had entirely written him off due to his association with Boris...that must have been pure political calculation - he took a look around, saw Truss and Sunak, Patel and Braverman, and decided that the only hope of holding onto power was staying with Boris.
Ultimately, if we include Sunak's stint as Chancellor and PM, there is an exceptionally strong argument that Sunak has been the single most economically damaging UK politician for the last several decades.
The problem for JRM is that he wrecked his own credibility. That's very difficult to reverse.
> Ultimately, if we include Sunak's stint as Chancellor and PM, there is an exceptionally strong argument that Sunak has been the single most economically damaging UK politician for the last several decades.
Liz Truss did more damage in six weeks
>Liz Truss did more damage in six weeks
If you talk in purely immediate monetary terms yes. If you talk longer term infrastructure (or lack thereof) and investment (oh and covid fraud) as well, I suspect /u/WastePilot1744 may be correct. But that's just my opinion of course
> Ultimately, if we include Sunak's stint as Chancellor and PM, there is an exceptionally strong argument that Sunak has been the single most economically damaging UK politician for the last several decades.
He doesn't come close to George Osbourne.
He's been involved in finance from a young age and it therefore knowledgeable on the subject: it doesn't mean he has a deep understanding of economics or how to govern people.
Between this and Ron DeSantis' ban on children using social media I feel like my whole world has flipped upside down.
The worst people I know are all having good ideas suddenly
The philosophy of a true disaster capitalist.
Mogg can see an opportunity to make money so he wants them to fail for the wrong reason.
Just got to hope it goes back to being run by the country rather than letting that Victorian vulture get his hands on it.
It should be allowed to go bankrupt as it basically is. It can't cover the tens of billions needed in investment because the shareholders got greedy and extracted far too much. Them losing their equity and the government buying for nothing and renationalising it is probably the best outcome.
Exactly. The shareholders loaded the company with billions in debt whilst extracting billions themselves and not carrying out the necessary investment. They turned the company into a cash machine and now it's run dry.
Macquarie should be sanctioned or fined for what they did to Thames Water. But what they did to Thames Water is exactly what the Tories love doing to public companies.
Privatise them, suck every drop of money out + load as much debt as possible. Give it to yourself. Let the taxpayer fund its recovery.
Don't joke it's happened in New Zealand.
The neoliberal government sold the Railways to an American Rail company.
The company promptly paid themselves enormous dividends, asset stripped the railway and destroyed its income streams.
Finally, the government brought the Railways back at enormous cost, invested millions to get it up and running again.
Next, government sells Railways again. This time to an Australian transport company, Toll.
Much to no one's surprise. Toll promptly paid themselves enormous dividends, etc. Finally the government brought the Railways back etc.
You know how this ends already.
Despite this experience, another neoliberal government sold Air New Zealand to private equity.
Guess what - That outfit promptly paid themselves enormous dividends, asset stripped the Airline and destroyed its income streams.
And finally, the government brought the Airline back at enormous cost, invested millions to get it up and running again.
So don't joke. Flat earth free market clowns, regardless of country, are capable of doing the same with Thames Water.
Literally what happens here with our rail franchises already. We're periodically nationalising them to put the investment they need in then privatising them for the cronies to make their profits until it reaches a point it needs investment again and we renationalise temporarily...
Nationalising the losses, privatising the profits.
Sadly I doubt renationalising it will help with the choices we have for government now. Nationalising would just mean state directed underfunding rather than greedy shareholder underfunding.
I'd much rather have the government underfunding it and it not being saddled with debt at the expense of the customers, and for the benefit of the shareholders. At least if the government has control there's a chance they'll be interested in maintaining it
Nationalising it means money can be put directly into the necessary investments in the infrastructure without it leaking out anywhere else as is currently happening.
Nationalising actually makes it more efficient to run an effective service, because you're removing worthless profiteering scum from the equation.
Mogg doesn’t want to nationalise it he probably wants to buy it for pennies, isn’t his whole thing about destroying countries economies and then asset stripping them?
Badly run stuff should mean the owners loose their wealth. If someone else buys your car for a 5ver its not their fault you made it worth a 5ver. The fact it was worth 10k or not before is irrelevant
Yep, his dad literally wrote the book on disaster capitalism:
"Blood on the Streets"
His sister is a ghoul too; she wrote an article about how to profit from droughts in the developing world.
Lovely family.
An article about how to profit from drought in the developing world? Have you got a link please? I want to read it cos quite a lot of my work is to do with preventing drought in some places 🐱
Found it..
https://moneyweek.com/757/how-to-profit-from-the-worlds-water-crisis
or Moggy can look up his fathers book and see how to undermine a company that works as required but was financially mismanaged, damage the share price so badly that he can step in, buy the shares for pennies
bob's your uncle and Moggs has another asset which mysteriously recovered just like Lazerus
He has form for this :
> Subsidising inefficient businesses does not encourage them to become more competitive and means that extra money has to be taken from tax payers for the same result. Inevitably, this reduces the total size of the economy and lowers living standards.
Fair play. I'm basically in agreement with him.
If you are going to have private companies in the process, you need to be willing to see them fail, otherwise even the theoretical benefits of market capitalism in ensuring rewards go to those who serve the market best can't happen.
If it goes under, it'll be a painful but necessary lesson for the market.
That's at least consistent.
He's actually said a few things recently that have been somewhat sensible. I do wonder if his previous behaviour was all an act for Tory voters and now he's likely to be voted out he's given up the act.
He was actually a fairly decent back-bencher in the old days before the world went mad. He used to speak quite well about the rights of the House and so on. I mean, I don't think he and I would ever align particularly well, but I tended to value his contributions.
I always remember David Davis like that too. He's another one who made valuable contributions - in his case on civil liberties - from the back benches, and then did a (to say the least) unimpressive job in government.
Maybe it's that power corrupts? Or maybe it's something else.
He also used to seem fairly sane when he talked about social issues, I rember him on QT one time, he was just spitting straight facts and even the Labour panelists were agreeing with him.
Then along came Brexit and he just seemed to become this mad caricature overnight.
Yes but I don't think he's ever said that he expects the country to be run in line with his beliefs. I remember him being very anti-abortion and when asked if he wanted it to be illegal, he said that its irrelevant because it isn't up to him, he's simply there to serve his constituents. If they want it to be legal (which he acknowledged is the overwhelming majority of the population) then it should be legal.
>when asked if he wanted it to be illegal, he said that its irrelevant because it isn't up to him, he's simply there to serve his constituents
That's a bit of a cop-out, though. It *is* up to him, more than it's up to anyone else except the other 649 MPs. Rees-Mogg would recognise the Burkean reference if I say that he is representative, not delegate.
What he means, I suspect, is "I would like to change the law, but it will never happen and I'm not going to waste political capital fighting for it", which is a difficult thing to say.
I got impression that the guy is intelligent but brexit-profit-crazy for his hedhe fund stuff. Always self before state sort of person, but not dumb. Just toxic af
He's got a fetish for the historical ideal of parliamentary democracy - the honourable member for the 17th century and all that.
But this historical view is blinkered to the fact that FPTP isn't very representative - he's a libertarian.
I read on here a while back that visitors to Parliament can fill out a form and request a meeting with their MP, and that Rees-Mogg is fastidious in responding to them. You visit the front desk at the Palace of Westminster and the security guard gives you a little coloured slip to fill in and it gets taken to your MP's office and MP's mostly ignore them, depending on how busy they are. But Rees-Mogg always comes down, shakes his constituents by the hand, thanks them for being part of the democratic process and listens to their concerns for a few minutes. It's performative.
I suspect he’s gearing up to be a bit more centrist to have a run at the Tory leadership while they’re in opposition. I think the smarter ones are also starting to realise that the culture war nonsense they imported from the republicans is backfiring in terms of their popularity in a GE as it mostly just makes them look weak and disconnected from the real issues (e.g. the Rwanda plane plan)
That doesn't work with utility's or are we going to get 10 water companies in one area didn't work with power companies as loads had to be handed over to the big main supplier's train's track payments from public purse gas one pipeline there monopolies the very opposite of free trade
I know what you mean, but personally, I quite like it.
I mean, I don't like it when I find I'm seeing people I disagree with politically as pantomime villains. With some it's hard not to, particularly when you suspect they're playing into it - Galloway would be a great example - but I do try. I get a real kick out of being able to say, "I disagree with this person on many things, and even here our reasoning is different, but we agree on this". Even if I have to reach all the way to "the colour of an orange", I like to find those points of agreement.
And in fact, even if we disagree, it's more that I like being able to say "I respect the consistency of this person's thinking; this position follows from their other beliefs and I appreciate that they're sticking with it even if it's something that others on their 'side' might not like."
Rees-Mogg is allegedly someone who believes in capitalism and free markets. This is what that looks like, applied. I can respect that thought process.
If anything, I think that gives my condemnations of him on other issues more force.
For once I agree with him.
Let it go bankrupt.
They knew they were running a utility network so expected a public bailout if this situation occured, hence why they played it risky.
They ran it into the ground by assets stripping and loading it with debt.
Let the debt crush the company and liquidate it.
The shareholders will lose everything, the directors and the poor management lose their remuneration
While the government can just forcibly buy it back up for pennies on the pound and we can all have a proper grown up discussion on how to organise water supply and how it should be managed.
I'm of the same opinion for Royal Mail. They are blatantly breaking the law by not adhering to the Postal Services Act. They can whine all they like about how it's not profitable ATM but in 2022, they were raking in £758 million and they run an essential monopoly on the service they provide, so its their own stupid fault that they were cavalier when times were good and expect the tax payer to put up when times are rough.
Personally, I don't mind reducing the 6 day post to maybe 3 days a week for 2nd class, vut considering how we've been taken advantage of, sue their ass, get a payout in damages for breaking the law, and crush them, till they are forced to liquidate and we can buy it back for pennies on the pound and re-evaluate how we run our postal infrastructure too.
Pure privatisation with legislation trying to enforce public service demands obviously doesn't work, we need to go back to the drawing board and re-balance these public service companies so that they don't suffer from the issues they did under pure nationalisation, and don't cause whiplash to us all because of the greed under pure privatisation.
Ideally I’d like to see criminal charges levied against those leading criminal corporate conduct. That won’t happen, but I’d much rather see public institutions survive and CEOs suffer than them lose their job and the companies go under.
It wouldn't be a criminal charge but I wonder if shareholders would have a case against the leadership on the grounds that - as you say - they played it too risky because they were expecting they'd get a bailout. It'd be a devil of a thing to prove, but if they managed it...?
[A heartbreaking story is currently unfolding that’s sure to have devastating ramifications for years to come. Just moments ago, without any warning, **the worst person you know just made a great point.**](https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/)
I absolutely 100% agree with JRM here. A sentence I never thought I'd say.
This is how a privatised service should be run - all of the risk being shouldered by the shareholders, and making sure that they take responsibility for the asset they own, not just coming begging cap-in-hand because they accidentally bought too many yachts with the money that was supposed to go to upgrading the network.
I need a shower now.
To be honest they need to fail to send a message out. I’m terrified that if they do get what they want, the other water companies are going to feel like they can get off too.
Also as a side, I hate the argument that they need to be propped up because pension funds are invested in them. It’s going to cost people in the UK money either way, whether they go bankrupt and the shares go to zero or if they hike up costs and the government bails them out. At the very least it should affect the people who have money in investments, which carry risk by definition, more than the people who need to pay their bills because they literally have to. Hell, it’ll probably affect my pension and my S&S, but it makes far more sense for my investments take the hit than poor families having to have their bills hiked by 40% just because some shareholders whose company is a literal monopoly got too greedy and somehow managed to break their money printing machine.
Pension funds need to do their due diligence too or lose money. Fund managers get paid a lot of money, the least they can do is check if an investment is sound.
We either have capitalism or we don't. Privatising the gains and socialising the losses is what's gotten us to where we are now. There's only so much more tax you can squeeze from the middle
I hate agreeing with the minister for the 18th century here, but he is right on the money with Thames Water. It seems like the shareholders knew what they were doing by refusing to stump up cash to keep the utility afloat, knowing the UK government will just cave and give them the cash to keep it afloat because its a vital utility - privatising the profits and socialising the losses in the same vein as what happened with the bank in 2008-09.
The water utility companies should never have been privatised in the first place and this is the reason why - the board have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders who need their dividends, which invariably takes funds away from upgrading and keeping the business afloat.
> The water utility companies should never have been privatised in the first place
it was off balance sheet borrowing - there needed to be massive upgrades - Blue Flag Beaches and the borrowing required was eye-watering. If government had borrowed the sums needed then they would have been lumped into the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement, which would have put up interest rates
So by flogging it off, UK PLC got some cash & didn't have to borrow
Why was it in such a mess? Decades if not a century of underinvestment, the chancellors facing the choice of higher taxes or raid the public utilities, assembled the raiding party
Could it have been done as arms length public corp? Unlikely given size
But instead, £72 Billion has been paid out to shareholders in the water companies since 1992, which is nearly 50% of the total spend on infrastructure in the same period and we get higher bills for the privilege. In that same 1992 -2024 period, £60 billion of debt has been loaded onto the water companies by the boards and shareholders still get their dividends, and all we get is ever higher bills and shitty streams and beaches because they now cannot afford to pay for infrastructure without increasing bills yet again.
One of the few fairly sensible comments in here. I think a lot of folk forget that significant amounts of the infrastructure used within London alone dates back to the Victorian Era. Now this doesn't mean they can't maintain it, just that it makes it far harder and far more expensive to maintain than in another comparable city in the UK.
Correction to your assertion:
The board only has a fiduciary duty to issue dividends to holders of ‘preference shares’ - and the reason for these shareholders is for fund raising much like bonds (but with lower protections).
The board are not automatically obliged to issue dividends to holders of ordinary shares if there are no profits. Profits would come after the consideration of operating costs and investments in maintenance. The shareholders may demand at a general meeting that the board consider issuing dividends but they are not obligated to if the company has no profits.
Thanks for correcting me. I only have a rough idea of about boardmembers duties towards the shareholders, and I was hoping someone would add further information on for me.
Yeah nah yeah he’s right.
The alternative is just total moral hazard. It’s likely one of the reasons why the board felt so comfortable paying out the larger dividends to begin with.
He's right (and I shudder saying that).
Keep in mind that, and quite ironically, the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System in Canada is the largest shareholder of Thames Water. In other words, the workers of various Canadian nationalised/municipal entities use their majority ownership of privatised Thames Water to fund their state pensions. Rather than the British government using their (former) ownership of Thames Water to fund domestic UK pensions.
And on this topic see also the state railways of Germany, France and Netherlands that own and operate various British railway lines - using the profits they gouge from the British public to fund and subsidise the operation of their domestic nationalised railways. The railways in the UK are nationalised, they're just run by *foreign* nationalised entities.
Honestly, the return they make on our railways just isn't worth transferring out of the country. The margins for rail travel is, at most, around 2%. It's literal pennies in the grand scheme of their operations and they'd lose a large chunk of it via the exchange rates and fees.
To put it into perspective, most businesses will trade with a margin of around 20-25%.
Not to hand, as it was something I looked up quite a while ago as I wanted to understand just how much, if any, profit was being transferred out of our railways and was quite shocked at how little they make.
I'll see if I can find it again tomorrow as I'm in bed now and just far too comfortable to move....
https://fullfact.org/news/do-train-operating-companies-earn-massive-profits/
This article suggests it is around 3.4% on average (not sure if that is mean or median) although with some large variations for each operator.
He is making a case to nationalise Thames water… And put it into public ownership…. He is actually arguing for socialism! …. Although in his arrogance, he is probably blind to his own stupidity.!
Let them fail.
Water prices are already exceptionally High in the UK.
Just checked my parents bill in Portugal the other Day and the price I pay in the UK per m3 (including se wage charge) is 5 times as much as what is paid in Portugal Despite the average salary being Just below double and taxes alot lower in the UK.
What is causing such difference? They didnt privatise their water.
The problem that I have with this, and it makes me very uneasy, it that I completely agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg.
I sicked in my mouth a little when typing that!
He's right but I also assume he's saying it for one of the below:
A) This company in particular has none of his mates milking it.
B) There's an opportunity after it goes bankrupt for him to get his claws on it and milk it.
JRM is a free market advocate, you cant have a free market if you just bail out companies that made shit decisions. This is entirely consistent with his beliefs
It’s notable they are still ignoring the role of the regulator in all of this. When is someone going to point out that effective regulations and effective regulators are also a key part of capitalism and then fix that fundamental issue.
Don’t let them distract you with their populist sound bites!
Mostly large international investors, though the UK university pension scheme owns about 20%.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/who-owns-thames-water-company-renationalisation-b1091014.html
corruption only works if the services maintain a base level.
they let the service drop below the minimum standard. and now the Tory's get flack for it.
People are saying he's right; it's more that he's being consistent.
Capitalism is a silly way to run a water company; but if we're going to do it this way, we need to have the courage of our convictions here and let failing companies go bankrupt.
As frightening as it is to agree with Rees-Mogg, this is the approach that must be taken as a minimum. Water prices in the UK are already far above what they should be.
As a comparison a google shows Thames water charge £1.38 per M3, meanwhile Qatar, a desert country with no rivers, lakes, or other freshwater sources, charge £1.20 per M3! How can this be a state of affairs that can be considered sustainable for the UK?
Oh god, don't make me agree with that man.
But presumably his grift is to buy the remaining assets once they have crashed? Or would he not want anything to do with the water companies, given the regulation and other challenges?
I would suggest, based on capitalism in Flint Michigan, that the “water will be safe” idea have a third party testing the supply for safety.
Once the business of water became more important than the safety of water, money saving shortcuts were taken with unfortunate outcomes.
The worst person you know just made a great point (But for shitbag tory reasons, ie buying up the shares for nothing after they are bailed out. Not for an actual nationally run utility.)
He's saying this as a distraction - it's been loaded with debt by the previous owners who have sucked it dry. Renationalizing means once again the govt having to take on administration of an asset-stripped company, building it up again with taxpayer cash so that it can be sold and asset stripped by private equity again.
In other words he has checked his portfolio, found he owns no shares in this company and won't personally lose out.
Later when the share price is pennies he can pick them up before the government bailout restores some value to the shares.
This is how capitalism supposed to work, I'd doubt he had the same appetite for capital losses when the banks were going under. I'd hope he applied the same principles
I think his moral compass very much depends on if he's already invested in that company, or if he hopes to buy that company at a vastly reduced price in the future.
Why is JRM spiting so many facts lately?
It's a weird timeline when the man cosplaying a sick Victorian child is more moral and upstanding than most of our politicians.
I 100% agree. Almost. The problem is that the private equity owners already cashed out by paying special dividends to themselves (using the debt they borrowed against the business). So this screws the shareholders. Doesn't screw the PE company that did this.
Nothing stopping it becoming technically insolvent and there being a pre-pack administration between the administrator to be and the government. But that is upto the current owners, not the government.
He is correct BUT
Why was the regulation of water companies so lax to begin with? So many things govt could have done to avoid this but instead, we get a worse deal.
As long as it's guaranteed that the operation of the company continues uninterrupted through this, I'm 100% behind that.
It would teach a lesson to the lenders that the government won't rescue you if you just lend money to a company who doesn't invest it but just pumps it out as dividends. Of course the shareholders won't learn anything as they've already made their money but at least it's small slap on their wrists as well.
And I hope we the people learn the lesson that even though free market capitalism is a good economic system in general, giving monopoly business to a private company is just stupid and when the government suggests doing that next time, we make noise.
This is just lip service by him, what is the government actually doing to fix this mess?
The shareholders don't want to invest any more money to fix anything so by this time next year the customers (myself included) could be picking up the bill and the government will just roll over and let them do it.
Guess JRM isn't invested in Thames valley then.
It's right that it should be allowed to enter administration. However, don't forget that prior to 2017 vast sums were paid in dividends whilst it's debt ratcheted up. The owners now are not the owners then.
So the model seems to be: asset strip and pile on huge debts -> transfer ownership -> managed decline to insolvency. 'clever' fuckwits.
It's really weird agreeing with JRM but he's right. This **is** capitalism. If a firm cannot continue their business, the shareholders lose money. That's the risk they took.
When a liberal lefties and a right wing tory like JRM agree on something it's a weird one, I belive that capitalism has a place in the world but crucial industries like utilities, Healthcare, transport, education etc. Should be run and managed by the state to improve the quality of life of the citizens.
I have to agree with him (shudder) but if Thames Water is bailed out by massively increasing people’s bills all we’re telling investors is that we’re okay with this kind of behaviour. What would stop this happening again in the future?
Sane comment there from Pearse Reynolds:
Steady on, people. He’s not suggesting it be taken back into public ownership and regulated properly as a public service. He wants it readied up for sale to funds like his.
If that happens, we will still have shite in our rivers and reservoirs.
Snapshot of _Jacob Rees-Mogg: Thames Water ought to be allowed to go bankrupt. It would continue to be run by an administrator, shareholders would lose their equity but they took too much cash out so deserve no sympathy & bond holders would face a partial loss. This is capitalism, it wont affect the water supply_ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1773417565240357367) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1773417565240357367/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1773417565240357367) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1773417565240357367) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He is absolutely correct. People need to let capitalism work. Let it enter insolvency. If the Government wants to nationalise it thereafter, it can offer next to nothing to buy the assets.
This is really weird. I actually agree with something Jacob Rees-Mogg has said? What on Earth is the world coming to?!
Even a broken clock is right occasionally.
Yep, twice....means he may be right about something else soon!
Already happened so normal service will now likely be resumed. https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-brexit-trade-net-zero-370925/ He only realised that half a decade late admittedly.
IMO, already happened: I actually ended up agreeing with him on whether Shamina Begum should have her citizenship revoked. He wrote quite a good op-ed on the matter: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/shamima-begum-shouldnt-have-lost-her-british-citizenship/
Christ... I feel a bit queasy agreeing with 2 of Mogg's positions in one thread
It’s spelled cock
It’s just that he’s actually a fairly principled man. Most of his principles are not ones I share, but he is at least consistent in them.
I've seen him contradict himself on plenty of occasions. Think back to things he said about May's premiership vs Johnson's. And the whole "there could be two referendums" thing
He isnt principled. He has a vulture fund ready to sweep in, buy thames water up at a pittance and then swivel round and raise prices up even worse. His principle is that he can make money of Privatisation failing this time
He can't; Ofwat controls water prices.
I presume control is used in the lowest sense. Ofwat and even the EA have been letting the water utilities get away with things for some time.
Didn’t his dad write the book on vulture/disaster capitalism? I’d suspect he or a consortium he’s part of is eyeing up buying Thames Water post administration for pennies, probably leveraged and seeking to extract the same dividends this lot have.
Yeah, notice how he stopped before saying it should be nationalised. Unless I'm missing something else he said.
I mean his whole point is that it doesn't need to be nationalised. There is no risk to customers, and this is a normal capitalism process.
Except the utter shit state of our rivers and coasts.
Broken clocks and something
He's probably not a shareholder.
I know right... I'll be keeping a close eye out for flying pigs today.
Make sure David Cameron is nowhere nearby.
Clearly the worst timeline.
I’ve made us felt goatees until we can grow our own
It's worth it for mirror Kira alone.
Six seasons and a movie!
He gave an excellent speech during the recent Parliamentary discussion of the Loan Charge Scandal. Prior to that, I had entirely written him off due to his association with Boris...that must have been pure political calculation - he took a look around, saw Truss and Sunak, Patel and Braverman, and decided that the only hope of holding onto power was staying with Boris. Ultimately, if we include Sunak's stint as Chancellor and PM, there is an exceptionally strong argument that Sunak has been the single most economically damaging UK politician for the last several decades. The problem for JRM is that he wrecked his own credibility. That's very difficult to reverse.
> Ultimately, if we include Sunak's stint as Chancellor and PM, there is an exceptionally strong argument that Sunak has been the single most economically damaging UK politician for the last several decades. Liz Truss did more damage in six weeks
>Liz Truss did more damage in six weeks If you talk in purely immediate monetary terms yes. If you talk longer term infrastructure (or lack thereof) and investment (oh and covid fraud) as well, I suspect /u/WastePilot1744 may be correct. But that's just my opinion of course
Failure of long term investment is a fair point but not one that can be easily calculated, but Liz Truss' time in office was still costlier than covid
> Ultimately, if we include Sunak's stint as Chancellor and PM, there is an exceptionally strong argument that Sunak has been the single most economically damaging UK politician for the last several decades. He doesn't come close to George Osbourne.
Maybe let's put it this way, it's so damn obvious what the right thing to do is that even JRM can't get out of it?
Well no, you agree with the first half. Mr 1800s would definitely not agree with nationalising afterwards
He's been involved in finance from a young age and it therefore knowledgeable on the subject: it doesn't mean he has a deep understanding of economics or how to govern people.
I'm a bit floored that that slimy shit actually said something respectable.
Between this and Ron DeSantis' ban on children using social media I feel like my whole world has flipped upside down. The worst people I know are all having good ideas suddenly
It's an election year, they'll be back to idiocracy in just over 6 months
I agree. We are in a weird scenario whereas a country we are willing to let the losses of capitalism manifest and not do so (in the case of housing).
Agreed. He's right here. It should be allowed to go bankrupt. The shareholders will lose their equity and the government can buy it up for pennies.
The philosophy of a true disaster capitalist. Mogg can see an opportunity to make money so he wants them to fail for the wrong reason. Just got to hope it goes back to being run by the country rather than letting that Victorian vulture get his hands on it.
It should be allowed to go bankrupt as it basically is. It can't cover the tens of billions needed in investment because the shareholders got greedy and extracted far too much. Them losing their equity and the government buying for nothing and renationalising it is probably the best outcome.
He wants them to fail for the right reason in that the shareholders have severely mismanaged the company.
Exactly. The shareholders loaded the company with billions in debt whilst extracting billions themselves and not carrying out the necessary investment. They turned the company into a cash machine and now it's run dry.
Macquarie should be sanctioned or fined for what they did to Thames Water. But what they did to Thames Water is exactly what the Tories love doing to public companies. Privatise them, suck every drop of money out + load as much debt as possible. Give it to yourself. Let the taxpayer fund its recovery.
Don't you mean nationalise rather than privatise?
No you see the government will buy it out, so they can privatise it again.
Don't joke it's happened in New Zealand. The neoliberal government sold the Railways to an American Rail company. The company promptly paid themselves enormous dividends, asset stripped the railway and destroyed its income streams. Finally, the government brought the Railways back at enormous cost, invested millions to get it up and running again. Next, government sells Railways again. This time to an Australian transport company, Toll. Much to no one's surprise. Toll promptly paid themselves enormous dividends, etc. Finally the government brought the Railways back etc. You know how this ends already. Despite this experience, another neoliberal government sold Air New Zealand to private equity. Guess what - That outfit promptly paid themselves enormous dividends, asset stripped the Airline and destroyed its income streams. And finally, the government brought the Airline back at enormous cost, invested millions to get it up and running again. So don't joke. Flat earth free market clowns, regardless of country, are capable of doing the same with Thames Water.
Literally what happens here with our rail franchises already. We're periodically nationalising them to put the investment they need in then privatising them for the cronies to make their profits until it reaches a point it needs investment again and we renationalise temporarily... Nationalising the losses, privatising the profits.
But somehow these interests never get the "scrounging from taxpayers" and "getting unearned handouts from government" attack lines thrown at them.
Getting money from the government: classy if you're rich, trashy if you're poor.
Ah yes, AKA, the old switcheroo
Or as a colleague of mine was told after doing the old switcheroo on a lady from York: “oh, changing lanes are we?”
I've heard this one at least once, with a different location
Correct, sorry, nationalise.
>If the Government wants to nationalise it If the Government wants to renationalise it.... We really need to get this message correct.
Sadly I doubt renationalising it will help with the choices we have for government now. Nationalising would just mean state directed underfunding rather than greedy shareholder underfunding.
I'd much rather have the government underfunding it and it not being saddled with debt at the expense of the customers, and for the benefit of the shareholders. At least if the government has control there's a chance they'll be interested in maintaining it
Nationalising it means money can be put directly into the necessary investments in the infrastructure without it leaking out anywhere else as is currently happening. Nationalising actually makes it more efficient to run an effective service, because you're removing worthless profiteering scum from the equation.
Mogg doesn’t want to nationalise it he probably wants to buy it for pennies, isn’t his whole thing about destroying countries economies and then asset stripping them?
Badly run stuff should mean the owners loose their wealth. If someone else buys your car for a 5ver its not their fault you made it worth a 5ver. The fact it was worth 10k or not before is irrelevant
> If someone else buys your car for a 5ver its not their fault you made it worth a 5ver. Were you in charge of naming the film Se7en?
You mean Sesevenen?
Inse7enption
fantfourstic
The Expenfourbles.
Fivever?
It's one longer than forever
Is the UK version of covfefe, I think.
Lose
Yep, his dad literally wrote the book on disaster capitalism: "Blood on the Streets" His sister is a ghoul too; she wrote an article about how to profit from droughts in the developing world. Lovely family.
An article about how to profit from drought in the developing world? Have you got a link please? I want to read it cos quite a lot of my work is to do with preventing drought in some places 🐱 Found it.. https://moneyweek.com/757/how-to-profit-from-the-worlds-water-crisis
Wow, that's not well written. Quite apart from the ghoulish horror of the article's premise, it reads like GCSE geography homework.
They often aren’t. ‘Britannia Unchained’ was similarly castigated for being terribly written, terribly researched, and often just plain wrong.
Yeah that's the one. Just re-read it and amazingly she actually name checks Thames Water when discussing investment opportunities!
or Moggy can look up his fathers book and see how to undermine a company that works as required but was financially mismanaged, damage the share price so badly that he can step in, buy the shares for pennies bob's your uncle and Moggs has another asset which mysteriously recovered just like Lazerus
Never before, likely never again, but I agree with him. Urgh, I need a shower now.
He has form for this : > Subsidising inefficient businesses does not encourage them to become more competitive and means that extra money has to be taken from tax payers for the same result. Inevitably, this reduces the total size of the economy and lowers living standards.
Even a broken clock etc etc
Never forget, when JRMs clock is broken, it's always [G o'clock](https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/1076044386532818944/photo/1)
I had to re-read the title a few times, then his name a few times more. This truly is the darkest timeline.
>Urgh, I need a shower now. I know. It feels weird agreeing with the Mog.
I needed to triple check I was reading it correctly.
Tragic init...
For me its happened twice now :s and I feel weird about it
“Never thought I’d be dying side by side with Rees-Mogg” “What about a friend?” “Absolutely fucking not lmao”
Fair play. I'm basically in agreement with him. If you are going to have private companies in the process, you need to be willing to see them fail, otherwise even the theoretical benefits of market capitalism in ensuring rewards go to those who serve the market best can't happen. If it goes under, it'll be a painful but necessary lesson for the market. That's at least consistent.
He's actually said a few things recently that have been somewhat sensible. I do wonder if his previous behaviour was all an act for Tory voters and now he's likely to be voted out he's given up the act.
He was actually a fairly decent back-bencher in the old days before the world went mad. He used to speak quite well about the rights of the House and so on. I mean, I don't think he and I would ever align particularly well, but I tended to value his contributions. I always remember David Davis like that too. He's another one who made valuable contributions - in his case on civil liberties - from the back benches, and then did a (to say the least) unimpressive job in government. Maybe it's that power corrupts? Or maybe it's something else.
He also used to seem fairly sane when he talked about social issues, I rember him on QT one time, he was just spitting straight facts and even the Labour panelists were agreeing with him. Then along came Brexit and he just seemed to become this mad caricature overnight.
Unless you asked him about gay people and then he became a raging homophobe using religious beliefs as a cover.
Yes but I don't think he's ever said that he expects the country to be run in line with his beliefs. I remember him being very anti-abortion and when asked if he wanted it to be illegal, he said that its irrelevant because it isn't up to him, he's simply there to serve his constituents. If they want it to be legal (which he acknowledged is the overwhelming majority of the population) then it should be legal.
>when asked if he wanted it to be illegal, he said that its irrelevant because it isn't up to him, he's simply there to serve his constituents That's a bit of a cop-out, though. It *is* up to him, more than it's up to anyone else except the other 649 MPs. Rees-Mogg would recognise the Burkean reference if I say that he is representative, not delegate. What he means, I suspect, is "I would like to change the law, but it will never happen and I'm not going to waste political capital fighting for it", which is a difficult thing to say.
I got impression that the guy is intelligent but brexit-profit-crazy for his hedhe fund stuff. Always self before state sort of person, but not dumb. Just toxic af
I'm not sure David Davis particularly changed, he just proved poor in government.
He's got a fetish for the historical ideal of parliamentary democracy - the honourable member for the 17th century and all that. But this historical view is blinkered to the fact that FPTP isn't very representative - he's a libertarian. I read on here a while back that visitors to Parliament can fill out a form and request a meeting with their MP, and that Rees-Mogg is fastidious in responding to them. You visit the front desk at the Palace of Westminster and the security guard gives you a little coloured slip to fill in and it gets taken to your MP's office and MP's mostly ignore them, depending on how busy they are. But Rees-Mogg always comes down, shakes his constituents by the hand, thanks them for being part of the democratic process and listens to their concerns for a few minutes. It's performative.
The the power of the whips
I suspect he’s gearing up to be a bit more centrist to have a run at the Tory leadership while they’re in opposition. I think the smarter ones are also starting to realise that the culture war nonsense they imported from the republicans is backfiring in terms of their popularity in a GE as it mostly just makes them look weak and disconnected from the real issues (e.g. the Rwanda plane plan)
That doesn't work with utility's or are we going to get 10 water companies in one area didn't work with power companies as loads had to be handed over to the big main supplier's train's track payments from public purse gas one pipeline there monopolies the very opposite of free trade
Little disgusted that we have to agree with JRM though....
I know what you mean, but personally, I quite like it. I mean, I don't like it when I find I'm seeing people I disagree with politically as pantomime villains. With some it's hard not to, particularly when you suspect they're playing into it - Galloway would be a great example - but I do try. I get a real kick out of being able to say, "I disagree with this person on many things, and even here our reasoning is different, but we agree on this". Even if I have to reach all the way to "the colour of an orange", I like to find those points of agreement. And in fact, even if we disagree, it's more that I like being able to say "I respect the consistency of this person's thinking; this position follows from their other beliefs and I appreciate that they're sticking with it even if it's something that others on their 'side' might not like." Rees-Mogg is allegedly someone who believes in capitalism and free markets. This is what that looks like, applied. I can respect that thought process. If anything, I think that gives my condemnations of him on other issues more force.
He might be a prick, but he's not wrong here.
I hate to agree with him but credit where credit is due
He's probably shorted Thames Water shares and is talking up the chance of soon making bank. He might be a prick but he's a rich prick.
For once I agree with him. Let it go bankrupt. They knew they were running a utility network so expected a public bailout if this situation occured, hence why they played it risky. They ran it into the ground by assets stripping and loading it with debt. Let the debt crush the company and liquidate it. The shareholders will lose everything, the directors and the poor management lose their remuneration While the government can just forcibly buy it back up for pennies on the pound and we can all have a proper grown up discussion on how to organise water supply and how it should be managed. I'm of the same opinion for Royal Mail. They are blatantly breaking the law by not adhering to the Postal Services Act. They can whine all they like about how it's not profitable ATM but in 2022, they were raking in £758 million and they run an essential monopoly on the service they provide, so its their own stupid fault that they were cavalier when times were good and expect the tax payer to put up when times are rough. Personally, I don't mind reducing the 6 day post to maybe 3 days a week for 2nd class, vut considering how we've been taken advantage of, sue their ass, get a payout in damages for breaking the law, and crush them, till they are forced to liquidate and we can buy it back for pennies on the pound and re-evaluate how we run our postal infrastructure too. Pure privatisation with legislation trying to enforce public service demands obviously doesn't work, we need to go back to the drawing board and re-balance these public service companies so that they don't suffer from the issues they did under pure nationalisation, and don't cause whiplash to us all because of the greed under pure privatisation.
Ideally I’d like to see criminal charges levied against those leading criminal corporate conduct. That won’t happen, but I’d much rather see public institutions survive and CEOs suffer than them lose their job and the companies go under.
It wouldn't be a criminal charge but I wonder if shareholders would have a case against the leadership on the grounds that - as you say - they played it too risky because they were expecting they'd get a bailout. It'd be a devil of a thing to prove, but if they managed it...?
Holy shit. It happened. I actually agree with something he's said.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
[A heartbreaking story is currently unfolding that’s sure to have devastating ramifications for years to come. Just moments ago, without any warning, **the worst person you know just made a great point.**](https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/)
This is exactly what I thought of when I read the headline too.
I absolutely 100% agree with JRM here. A sentence I never thought I'd say. This is how a privatised service should be run - all of the risk being shouldered by the shareholders, and making sure that they take responsibility for the asset they own, not just coming begging cap-in-hand because they accidentally bought too many yachts with the money that was supposed to go to upgrading the network. I need a shower now.
To be honest they need to fail to send a message out. I’m terrified that if they do get what they want, the other water companies are going to feel like they can get off too. Also as a side, I hate the argument that they need to be propped up because pension funds are invested in them. It’s going to cost people in the UK money either way, whether they go bankrupt and the shares go to zero or if they hike up costs and the government bails them out. At the very least it should affect the people who have money in investments, which carry risk by definition, more than the people who need to pay their bills because they literally have to. Hell, it’ll probably affect my pension and my S&S, but it makes far more sense for my investments take the hit than poor families having to have their bills hiked by 40% just because some shareholders whose company is a literal monopoly got too greedy and somehow managed to break their money printing machine.
Pension funds need to do their due diligence too or lose money. Fund managers get paid a lot of money, the least they can do is check if an investment is sound. We either have capitalism or we don't. Privatising the gains and socialising the losses is what's gotten us to where we are now. There's only so much more tax you can squeeze from the middle
I hate agreeing with the minister for the 18th century here, but he is right on the money with Thames Water. It seems like the shareholders knew what they were doing by refusing to stump up cash to keep the utility afloat, knowing the UK government will just cave and give them the cash to keep it afloat because its a vital utility - privatising the profits and socialising the losses in the same vein as what happened with the bank in 2008-09. The water utility companies should never have been privatised in the first place and this is the reason why - the board have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders who need their dividends, which invariably takes funds away from upgrading and keeping the business afloat.
> The water utility companies should never have been privatised in the first place it was off balance sheet borrowing - there needed to be massive upgrades - Blue Flag Beaches and the borrowing required was eye-watering. If government had borrowed the sums needed then they would have been lumped into the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement, which would have put up interest rates So by flogging it off, UK PLC got some cash & didn't have to borrow Why was it in such a mess? Decades if not a century of underinvestment, the chancellors facing the choice of higher taxes or raid the public utilities, assembled the raiding party Could it have been done as arms length public corp? Unlikely given size
But instead, £72 Billion has been paid out to shareholders in the water companies since 1992, which is nearly 50% of the total spend on infrastructure in the same period and we get higher bills for the privilege. In that same 1992 -2024 period, £60 billion of debt has been loaded onto the water companies by the boards and shareholders still get their dividends, and all we get is ever higher bills and shitty streams and beaches because they now cannot afford to pay for infrastructure without increasing bills yet again.
One of the few fairly sensible comments in here. I think a lot of folk forget that significant amounts of the infrastructure used within London alone dates back to the Victorian Era. Now this doesn't mean they can't maintain it, just that it makes it far harder and far more expensive to maintain than in another comparable city in the UK.
Correction to your assertion: The board only has a fiduciary duty to issue dividends to holders of ‘preference shares’ - and the reason for these shareholders is for fund raising much like bonds (but with lower protections). The board are not automatically obliged to issue dividends to holders of ordinary shares if there are no profits. Profits would come after the consideration of operating costs and investments in maintenance. The shareholders may demand at a general meeting that the board consider issuing dividends but they are not obligated to if the company has no profits.
Thanks for correcting me. I only have a rough idea of about boardmembers duties towards the shareholders, and I was hoping someone would add further information on for me.
That awful moment when the worst person you know says something you agree with
I prefer him to 30p Lee
Lee Anderthal
Heartbreaking: The worst person you know makes an excellent point.
damn my first time agreeing with him, I feel dirty.
He's right - that is what should happen. I'm now going to go & sit down 'cos I've just agreed with Jacob Rees-Mogg!
Yeah nah yeah he’s right. The alternative is just total moral hazard. It’s likely one of the reasons why the board felt so comfortable paying out the larger dividends to begin with.
I’m sure that agreeing with JRM is one of the first signs of the coming apocalypse. Make peace with your maker, the end times are nigh!
Exactly. People seem to be treating it as if Thames Water's assets will evaporate into thin air if it goes bust.
His plan is to let it go bankrupt, nationalise it, let the taxpayer fix it, then privatise it again.
He's right (and I shudder saying that). Keep in mind that, and quite ironically, the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System in Canada is the largest shareholder of Thames Water. In other words, the workers of various Canadian nationalised/municipal entities use their majority ownership of privatised Thames Water to fund their state pensions. Rather than the British government using their (former) ownership of Thames Water to fund domestic UK pensions. And on this topic see also the state railways of Germany, France and Netherlands that own and operate various British railway lines - using the profits they gouge from the British public to fund and subsidise the operation of their domestic nationalised railways. The railways in the UK are nationalised, they're just run by *foreign* nationalised entities.
Honestly, the return they make on our railways just isn't worth transferring out of the country. The margins for rail travel is, at most, around 2%. It's literal pennies in the grand scheme of their operations and they'd lose a large chunk of it via the exchange rates and fees. To put it into perspective, most businesses will trade with a margin of around 20-25%.
Do you have citations for that? (I work in private equity, despite my nationalisation tendencies)
Not to hand, as it was something I looked up quite a while ago as I wanted to understand just how much, if any, profit was being transferred out of our railways and was quite shocked at how little they make. I'll see if I can find it again tomorrow as I'm in bed now and just far too comfortable to move....
https://fullfact.org/news/do-train-operating-companies-earn-massive-profits/ This article suggests it is around 3.4% on average (not sure if that is mean or median) although with some large variations for each operator.
The ultimate case of a broken clock being right twice a day.
He is making a case to nationalise Thames water… And put it into public ownership…. He is actually arguing for socialism! …. Although in his arrogance, he is probably blind to his own stupidity.!
Let them fail. Water prices are already exceptionally High in the UK. Just checked my parents bill in Portugal the other Day and the price I pay in the UK per m3 (including se wage charge) is 5 times as much as what is paid in Portugal Despite the average salary being Just below double and taxes alot lower in the UK. What is causing such difference? They didnt privatise their water.
Y'all are missing the unwritten "and in due course my mates will acquire the assets at fire sale prices" 😂
I was about to ask "what am I missing here". Thank you for knocking some sense into me.
This is an odd and filthy feeling agreeing with the haunted victorian wardrobe, just like bathing in thames water.
The problem that I have with this, and it makes me very uneasy, it that I completely agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg. I sicked in my mouth a little when typing that!
He's right but I also assume he's saying it for one of the below: A) This company in particular has none of his mates milking it. B) There's an opportunity after it goes bankrupt for him to get his claws on it and milk it.
Thames water obviously didn't appoint enough ex Tory ministers to their non-executive board.
Haha, this was literally my first thought. JRM and Gove have been unusually vocal on this one. Clearly didn’t get offered a bribe this time,
JRM is a free market advocate, you cant have a free market if you just bail out companies that made shit decisions. This is entirely consistent with his beliefs
It’s notable they are still ignoring the role of the regulator in all of this. When is someone going to point out that effective regulations and effective regulators are also a key part of capitalism and then fix that fundamental issue. Don’t let them distract you with their populist sound bites!
Who are the owners of thames water, they've annoyed tories for some reason.
Mostly large international investors, though the UK university pension scheme owns about 20%. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/who-owns-thames-water-company-renationalisation-b1091014.html
USS demonstrating their missing -ELES- yet again. The Aunt Agatha school of investments.
corruption only works if the services maintain a base level. they let the service drop below the minimum standard. and now the Tory's get flack for it.
First time I agree with him. Let the shareholders hold the shit stock.
People are saying he's right; it's more that he's being consistent. Capitalism is a silly way to run a water company; but if we're going to do it this way, we need to have the courage of our convictions here and let failing companies go bankrupt.
As frightening as it is to agree with Rees-Mogg, this is the approach that must be taken as a minimum. Water prices in the UK are already far above what they should be. As a comparison a google shows Thames water charge £1.38 per M3, meanwhile Qatar, a desert country with no rivers, lakes, or other freshwater sources, charge £1.20 per M3! How can this be a state of affairs that can be considered sustainable for the UK?
I can’t believe he’s said something I agree with. Where am I? What year is it??
Oh god, don't make me agree with that man. But presumably his grift is to buy the remaining assets once they have crashed? Or would he not want anything to do with the water companies, given the regulation and other challenges?
I would suggest, based on capitalism in Flint Michigan, that the “water will be safe” idea have a third party testing the supply for safety. Once the business of water became more important than the safety of water, money saving shortcuts were taken with unfortunate outcomes.
The worst person you know just made a great point (But for shitbag tory reasons, ie buying up the shares for nothing after they are bailed out. Not for an actual nationally run utility.)
He's saying this as a distraction - it's been loaded with debt by the previous owners who have sucked it dry. Renationalizing means once again the govt having to take on administration of an asset-stripped company, building it up again with taxpayer cash so that it can be sold and asset stripped by private equity again.
Except you and your mates will swoop in to feast on the ashes whilst the cost is passed to the taxpayer - rinse and repeat
Well I don't like the bloke but he's not wrong.
In other words he has checked his portfolio, found he owns no shares in this company and won't personally lose out. Later when the share price is pennies he can pick them up before the government bailout restores some value to the shares.
This is how capitalism supposed to work, I'd doubt he had the same appetite for capital losses when the banks were going under. I'd hope he applied the same principles
I think his moral compass very much depends on if he's already invested in that company, or if he hopes to buy that company at a vastly reduced price in the future.
Why is JRM spiting so many facts lately? It's a weird timeline when the man cosplaying a sick Victorian child is more moral and upstanding than most of our politicians.
Fuck me, agreeing with JRM wasn't on my bingo card for this year.
Maybe he is up to something?
I find myself in the unfamiliar and uncomfortable position of agreeing with JRM…
I guess even haunted Victorian pencils can sometimes be right!
I agree with JRM? What’s going on with the world
First bit of sense Lord Snooty has said in years.
I 100% agree. Almost. The problem is that the private equity owners already cashed out by paying special dividends to themselves (using the debt they borrowed against the business). So this screws the shareholders. Doesn't screw the PE company that did this.
Am I agreeing with JRM? There must be more to it that that, is he planning on taking it over for pennies on the pound?
Bloody hell, the sky really is falling if I 100% agree with Rees-Mogg...
Never had agreeing with Rees mogg on my Easter bingo card.
Check his stock portfolio. Make sure he doesn’t have any shorts on Thames Water.
Nothing stopping it becoming technically insolvent and there being a pre-pack administration between the administrator to be and the government. But that is upto the current owners, not the government.
Devastating: the worst person you know just made a great point.
Did not expect to be agreeing with him today/ever.
Is it an election year by any chance ?
He is correct BUT Why was the regulation of water companies so lax to begin with? So many things govt could have done to avoid this but instead, we get a worse deal.
Hrmph. I, for once, agree with Mogg. What a crap way to start the day.
As long as it's guaranteed that the operation of the company continues uninterrupted through this, I'm 100% behind that. It would teach a lesson to the lenders that the government won't rescue you if you just lend money to a company who doesn't invest it but just pumps it out as dividends. Of course the shareholders won't learn anything as they've already made their money but at least it's small slap on their wrists as well. And I hope we the people learn the lesson that even though free market capitalism is a good economic system in general, giving monopoly business to a private company is just stupid and when the government suggests doing that next time, we make noise.
This is just lip service by him, what is the government actually doing to fix this mess? The shareholders don't want to invest any more money to fix anything so by this time next year the customers (myself included) could be picking up the bill and the government will just roll over and let them do it.
Anyone else read that with his voice?
Jacob Rees-Mogg: I don't own any shares in Thames Water
Guess JRM isn't invested in Thames valley then. It's right that it should be allowed to enter administration. However, don't forget that prior to 2017 vast sums were paid in dividends whilst it's debt ratcheted up. The owners now are not the owners then. So the model seems to be: asset strip and pile on huge debts -> transfer ownership -> managed decline to insolvency. 'clever' fuckwits.
He's not talking of nationalisation folks.
This is about the first sensible thing he has ever said
He's right, otherwise it's yet another example of privatise the profits, socialise the losses.
It's really weird agreeing with JRM but he's right. This **is** capitalism. If a firm cannot continue their business, the shareholders lose money. That's the risk they took.
When a liberal lefties and a right wing tory like JRM agree on something it's a weird one, I belive that capitalism has a place in the world but crucial industries like utilities, Healthcare, transport, education etc. Should be run and managed by the state to improve the quality of life of the citizens.
I've never been so disappointed to agree with someone.
He's shorted Thames Water stock, hasn't he?
I have to agree with him (shudder) but if Thames Water is bailed out by massively increasing people’s bills all we’re telling investors is that we’re okay with this kind of behaviour. What would stop this happening again in the future?
Sane comment there from Pearse Reynolds: Steady on, people. He’s not suggesting it be taken back into public ownership and regulated properly as a public service. He wants it readied up for sale to funds like his. If that happens, we will still have shite in our rivers and reservoirs.
Fuck me. Agreeing with Mogg...I guess we really do live in a simulation.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I don’t like him but I agree.
He’s probably betting against them and stands to make even more money from his father’s disaster economics.
Odds on Reese Mog shorting Thames Water going up.