• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Keir Starmer at it again..

I’ve met Dieter Helm a few times, he knows nowt about water - he will freely admit that too.
 
Also, if you treat the obligation to fix the pipes as a liability, that liability remains even if ownership transfers from the private to the public sector. Only now its a liability against the government. So the money you've saved by wiping out part of the market valuation of the company is money you now have to spend to deal with that liability - you cant suddenly say it doesnt matter.

So you're going to end up spending the money anyway.

Fantasy economics. Imagine my surprise.
 
Well the current plan is to fund about half the 104bn improvement costs with huge bill increases.
 
Chop a small bit off the CEOs and keep doing it, if they take a bonus and pay shareholders instead of fixing leaks, repairing or building infrastructure?
 
AndyWolves said:
What is the solution to our water companies?
Click to expand...
You've got to put it in to an international context first - we look bad because were the first (and still only) country to properly comply with the EU mandate to roll out universal EDMs on CSOs - so we have the full dataset and know how much is spilt into rivers. Most of Europe reports very weak datasets, plus they implemented sewer systems later than us so they are generally separate systems

So if you consider we are actually not that bad while still living with the fact a stupid decision was made in the 1800s to do combined sewers we can either invest a fucking shit load to separate them or accept that the vast vast majority of CSO spills are just rainwater and we should not focus on volume but focus on harm or consequence. If the aim were to ensure no harm were to be done to the enviroment rather than an arbitrary 10 spills p/a target then that could be achieved much quicker. We do still have to consider what we do about the consequences of climate change (mainly dryer summers with higher demand and more intense rainfall which fuck up spill numbers if that is your aim).

So I would rip up the current targets strip it back to targets to ensure sustainable water supply with no harm to the environment, put a cap on profits and only allow them to be take when targets are met.

Or you could just scream and shout about fat cats forerver.
 
UK law allows Parliament to set compensation terms, and that market value is not required unless specified. Legal challenges are possible but not guaranteed to succeed.
 
Templeton Peck said:
UK law allows Parliament to set compensation terms, and that market value is not required unless specified. Legal challenges are possible but not guaranteed to succeed.
Click to expand...
UK law doesnt supercede the ECHR though.
 
The ECHR allows states to control the use of property in the public interest. That means nationalisation is permitted, provided it’s lawful and serves a legitimate aim.

They tend to give wide discretion to national governments, especially when it comes to economic policy.

Northern Rock shareholders were unsuccessful in 2012 when they tried to argue the compensation for their shares (or lack of) was a violation of their property rights.
 
Northern Rock was insolvent. The water companies are not.

Northern Rock had a market value of zero. The water companies do not.
 
Technically it wasn't - the govt changed the law to create a false insolvency to justify nationalisation.

If you wanted to nationalise water companies you could easily argue it on the basis of environmental/public health risks.

Shareholders could challenge compensation, but courts would likely defer to Parliament’s discretion, especially if it was deemed to be in the public interest.
 
The court of appeal ruled against the shareholders, saying: “The court would only interfere if it were to conclude that the state’s judgment as to what is in the public interest is manifestly without reasonable foundation.”

When the case was taken to the ECHR, the court ruled there was no general right to full market-value compensation. Judges said: “Legitimate objectives in the ‘public interest’, such as those pursued in measures of economic reform or measures designed to achieve greater social justice, may call for less than reimbursement of the full market value.”
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wellen Wolf
Airwolf 90 report by Johnny Phillips 5 years ago.
Replies
1
Views
262
Bertiewolf
B
Deutsch Wolf
Bournemouth 1-0 Wolves: Verdict Thread
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
4K
pavlosmacwolf
pavlosmacwolf
Jinky
Wolves 0-4 Man City (16/08/2025) - Verdict Thread
4 5 6
Replies
100
Views
5K
Lupo
Lupo
C
Coach Pereira seems lost early
Replies
1
Views
467
Shotbybothsides
Shotbybothsides
spanish Wolf
Works in Molineux?
Replies
14
Views
658
Keef
Keef
Back
Top