I notice the juxtaposition of these headlines in an FT email this morning:
The government is going to spend about the same sum to stop shit-filled water flooding into people's houses as Thames is doing to keep the flow of that water going.
As an indication of how the values within our society are deeply misplaced, that takes some beating.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Thank you, Richard.
Before I read further, I thought you were talking about our dear leader. “Events, dear boy. Events.”
Let me revert to French: “Jamais deux sans trois.”
That’s “GROWTH” that is!
(says Rachel)
The FT headline ref Thames is incorrect: “Thames water burns through £15m/month of money paid by people that “enjoy” its services – on lawyers, advisers and similar parasites to defend itself against providing a shit service to the self same people aka Uk serfs”.
Sorted.
Those that are unhappy can console themselves that the £15m/month is needed by needy lawyers to maintain their life styles – champers, cigars and health club membership has gone up ditto the cost of long weekends somewhere nice – the money for this has to come from somewhere – so why not defending the indefensible?
Did UK serfs vote for this? – well they were happy enough with the privatisations that promised so much and delivered so much for the wealthy…..& so very little for the serfs..
That got me thinking, in the same way we have “taxpayers’ money”, we have “customers’ money”. If Thames is wanting to take money from customers to buy things that then Thames water will own, that’s an unnecessary step. Instead, if the investment is needed, it could be provided by customers as an investment, instead of transferring ownership of the money, the customers, through their bills, would be investing, instead of paying, and would then own the infrastructure purchased, like any investment, so the people served by Thames water would own Thames water, and be the beneficiaries of any dividends connected to that investment.
🙂
What you describe to me above is the perfect market scenario – corrupt government in the service of capital and not the people who voted for it.
I note Prem Sikka’s articles today about Thames Water, on Left Foot Forward. Water privatisation maybe ranks as one of the biggest frauds in history, perpetrated against an entire population, including the govt, both dominant political parties, Ofwat, and the beneficiaries across the world. What I find most puzzling is that the large, powerful businesses in the UK that are also being fleeced, haven’t got together to attack the govt, Ofwat and the water companies. Same with gas and electricity. There is a noticeable lack of solidarity in the UK, and if we don’t find it, we are stuffed. This is a point where big business and people in general could find common cause against this sickness at the heart of govt that is utterly corrupted.