Independent Leyton Orient Forum

George M wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 11:51 am

Monkey Boy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 9:03 am Unfortunately, we are paying the price for Maggie Thatcher and her Nazi party boys not only did she destroy mining communities but she took away all the publicly owned utility companys and gave it to all the rich people we’re still paying for it. Best thing that woman ever did was to drop dead.

Disgusting comment. If she hadn’t have shut down mines , the next government would have. Move on you dinosaur

Would the next government have happily destroyed the communities in the process?

It's staggering that people still defend the c*nt.

George M wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 11:51 am

Monkey Boy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 9:03 am Unfortunately, we are paying the price for Maggie Thatcher and her Nazi party boys not only did she destroy mining communities but she took away all the publicly owned utility companys and gave it to all the rich people we’re still paying for it. Best thing that woman ever did was to drop dead.

Disgusting comment. If she hadn’t have shut down mines , the next government would have. Move on you dinosaur

Hang on. This morning you claimed not to be political now you're spewing out more political stuff. Very confusing.

Monkey Boy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 9:03 am Unfortunately, we are paying the price for Maggie Thatcher and her Nazi party boys not only did she destroy mining communities but she took away all the publicly owned utility companys and gave it to all the rich people we’re still paying for it. Best thing that woman ever did was to drop dead.

The " Best thing she did " would have been doing it 40 years earlier, not 2013

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 2:39 pm

George M wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 11:51 am

Monkey Boy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 9:03 am Unfortunately, we are paying the price for Maggie Thatcher and her Nazi party boys not only did she destroy mining communities but she took away all the publicly owned utility companys and gave it to all the rich people we’re still paying for it. Best thing that woman ever did was to drop dead.

Disgusting comment. If she hadn’t have shut down mines , the next government would have. Move on you dinosaur

Hang on. This morning you claimed not to be political now you're spewing out more political stuff. Very confusing.

I know,just don’t like political tyrants regardless of which party they represent. Have a nice day Maxi.

Pugwash wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 2:53 pm

Monkey Boy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 9:03 am Unfortunately, we are paying the price for Maggie Thatcher and her Nazi party boys not only did she destroy mining communities but she took away all the publicly owned utility companys and gave it to all the rich people we’re still paying for it. Best thing that woman ever did was to drop dead.

The " Best thing she did " would have been doing it 40 years earlier, not 2013

You ain’t wrong

If, and it's a big if, we nationalised the water companies how would the cost of doing so be valued? If it was purely on the market value of the business at time of acquisition it would be a huge expense.

Why not change the law to enable the state to take them back for £1 a go, on the basis that they'd creamed enough off over the years and so would they just politely FO. Have a referendum on it. Pretty sure which way the vote would go.

BoniO wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:51 pm If, and it's a big if, we nationalised the water companies how would the cost of doing so be valued? If it was purely on the market value of the business at time of acquisition it would be a huge expense.

Why not change the law to enable the state to take them back for £1 a go, on the basis that they'd creamed enough off over the years and so would they just politely FO. Have a referendum on it. Pretty sure which way the vote would go.

We never have referenda on the important things.

StillSpike wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:58 pm

BoniO wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:51 pm If, and it's a big if, we nationalised the water companies how would the cost of doing so be valued? If it was purely on the market value of the business at time of acquisition it would be a huge expense.

Why not change the law to enable the state to take them back for £1 a go, on the basis that they'd creamed enough off over the years and so would they just politely FO. Have a referendum on it. Pretty sure which way the vote would go.

We never have referenda on the important things.

Time for change then….

StillSpike wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:58 pm

BoniO wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:51 pm If, and it's a big if, we nationalised the water companies how would the cost of doing so be valued? If it was purely on the market value of the business at time of acquisition it would be a huge expense.

Why not change the law to enable the state to take them back for £1 a go, on the basis that they'd creamed enough off over the years and so would they just politely FO. Have a referendum on it. Pretty sure which way the vote would go.

We never have referenda on the important things.

Probably for the best. We'd vote 52% against nationalisation.

BoniO wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:51 pm If, and it's a big if, we nationalised the water companies how would the cost of doing so be valued? If it was purely on the market value of the business at time of acquisition it would be a huge expense.

Why not change the law to enable the state to take them back for £1 a go, on the basis that they'd creamed enough off over the years and so would they just politely FO. Have a referendum on it. Pretty sure which way the vote would go.

As a regulated industry the watercos when they get into trouble financially have different insolvency rules they have to follow. Labour changed these laws recently so that in an insolvency event the assets can be hived down to a Newco potentially leaving the debt behind and the shares sold.

It also appears that, subject to court approval, assets with a fixed charge can be acquired for an appropriate value" rather than "market value"

Personally I would prefer nationalisation without compensation and the Directors jailed for theft.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 7:50 pm

BoniO wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 3:51 pm If, and it's a big if, we nationalised the water companies how would the cost of doing so be valued? If it was purely on the market value of the business at time of acquisition it would be a huge expense.

Why not change the law to enable the state to take them back for £1 a go, on the basis that they'd creamed enough off over the years and so would they just politely FO. Have a referendum on it. Pretty sure which way the vote would go.

As a regulated industry the watercos when they get into trouble financially have different insolvency rules they have to follow. Labour changed these laws recently so that in an insolvency event the assets can be hired down to a Newco potentially leaving the debt behind and the shares sold.

It also appears that, subject to court approval, assets with a fixed charge can be acquired for an appropriate value" rather than "market value"

Personally I would prefer nationalisation without compensation and the Directors jailed for theft.

I wasn't aware of this. A few questions if I may:

Who would own the Newco?
When you say that the Waterco's assets are 'hired' down to the Newco, is that in a literal sense and, if so, is rent paid back to the Waterco?
What shares would be sold and to whom?
And finally, does the residual debt just get written-off?

Thanks.

Newco would be owned initially by existing WaterCo operating the business.

I meant hived down but spellchecker changed it. A hive down is just the name for a transfer of a business from one company to its subsidiary.

Shares in Newco would be sold to a willing buyer.

I suspect that the debts would be written off but can see the banks and capital markets having meltdown if that happened. So it may be more complicated.

Also, where a special administration is initiated on the basis that the company is "unable to pay its debts" the new provisions allow for a "rescue" purpose to apply.

If a rescue of the company as a going concern is pursued the special administrators may propose modified versions of a scheme of arrangement, restructuring plan or CVA.

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 12:23 pm

George M wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 11:51 am

Monkey Boy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 9:03 am Unfortunately, we are paying the price for Maggie Thatcher and her Nazi party boys not only did she destroy mining communities but she took away all the publicly owned utility companys and gave it to all the rich people we’re still paying for it. Best thing that woman ever did was to drop dead.

Disgusting comment. If she hadn’t have shut down mines , the next government would have. Move on you dinosaur

Would the next government have happily destroyed the communities in the process?

It's staggering that people still defend the c*nt.

They would all have closed anyway as coal not good for net zero targets are they.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 9:24 pm Newco would be owned initially by existing WaterCo operating the business.

I meant hived down but spellchecker changed it. A hive down is just the name for a transfer of a business from one company to its subsidiary.

Shares in Newco would be sold to a willing buyer.

I suspect that the debts would be written off but can see the banks and capital markets having meltdown if that happened. So it may be more complicated.

Also, where a special administration is initiated on the basis that the company is "unable to pay its debts" the new provisions allow for a "rescue" purpose to apply.

If a rescue of the company as a going concern is pursued the special administrators may propose modified versions of a scheme of arrangement, restructuring plan or CVA.

Thanks. So basically it's a contrived way to enable private equity to get back in on the action should a previously privatised venture go bust, and avoid renationalisation?

I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why the functions and assets of an insolvent nationalised company should not be brought back into state ownership without compensation to investors.

Yanzi Gravy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 10:42 pm

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 12:23 pm

George M wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 11:51 am

Disgusting comment. If she hadn’t have shut down mines , the next government would have. Move on you dinosaur

Would the next government have happily destroyed the communities in the process?

It's staggering that people still defend the c*nt.

They would all have closed anyway as coal not good for net zero targets are they.

That’s true now however it’s the way Thatcher went about it. vicious and calculated. and using the police as a private Gestapo party. I knew a couple of PC’s from the met that couldn’t wait “to get stuck in “. Many communities were viciously wiped out by that tyrant of a woman.if only the IRA had done there job properly. That woman and her henchmen rinsed this country and we’re still paying the price.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 9:24 pm Newco would be owned initially by existing WaterCo operating the business.

I meant hived down but spellchecker changed it. A hive down is just the name for a transfer of a business from one company to its subsidiary.

Shares in Newco would be sold to a willing buyer.

I suspect that the debts would be written off but can see the banks and capital markets having meltdown if that happened. So it may be more complicated.

Also, where a special administration is initiated on the basis that the company is "unable to pay its debts" the new provisions allow for a "rescue" purpose to apply.

If a rescue of the company as a going concern is pursued the special administrators may propose modified versions of a scheme of arrangement, restructuring plan or CVA.

Who takes the hit in this scenario, maxy? Sounds like it's a win-win for everyone with no losers.

Who do they owe money to and why?

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 9:36 am

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 9:24 pm Newco would be owned initially by existing WaterCo operating the business.

I meant hived down but spellchecker changed it. A hive down is just the name for a transfer of a business from one company to its subsidiary.

Shares in Newco would be sold to a willing buyer.

I suspect that the debts would be written off but can see the banks and capital markets having meltdown if that happened. So it may be more complicated.

Also, where a special administration is initiated on the basis that the company is "unable to pay its debts" the new provisions allow for a "rescue" purpose to apply.

If a rescue of the company as a going concern is pursued the special administrators may propose modified versions of a scheme of arrangement, restructuring plan or CVA.

Who takes the hit in this scenario, maxy? Sounds like it's a win-win for everyone with no losers.

The lenders I suppose.

Under capitalism we have been brainwashed into thinking that if capital is invested in an enterprise and is at risk then the investors should reap the rewards.

But more often than not that's not what happens. The state gives out free money in the form of grants, free rates, tax breaks etc etc. In the case of the WaterCos they were sold off on the cheap and billions of pounds of debt were written off before sale. The new owners (mostly foreign entities) have failed to invest in infrastructure, loaded the companies with debt and stripped out the profits. All at the expense of the environment, customers and the UK taxpayer. Socialism for the rich poverty for the rest of us.

Now they are in big trouble financially a government wanting to protect customers, the taxpayer and the environment would step in and acquire the companies via the regulator for a knock down price.

However, as Labour are now just another party beholden to financial capital ("The City") that can't happen.

Its time for the unions and the two remaining socialists in the Labour Party to recognise this and cut their ties with them and attempt to unite the broader Left around economic issues such as this and say the under funding of the NHS which has a minister funded by private health companies. How does that work?

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 9:51 am Who do they owe money to and why?

Assuming they still follow the usual Macquarie model, it'll be owned by foreign governments and huge foreign pension funds, and debts will be owed to big foreign banks.

The profit made from the normal trading activity of selling water to the people of the UK is extracted to foreign holding companies via management charges and loan interest so that no tax is paid here, nor is any reinvestment made in the infrastructure. The foreign holding companies borrow money from big foreign banks against the future profits from the UK subsidiary's trading activities. The interest on these loans and consultant, legal and accounting fees are all paid from these loans. Any remaining profit/cash is then paid out by the ultimate holding company to the foreign government and huge foreign pension fund owners as dividends.

It's lucky really that these foreign governments are prepared to step in to these complex structures and run our utilities for us, because obviously our governments couldn't do it.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 10:14 am

Its time for the unions and the two remaining socialists in the Labour Party to recognise this and cut their ties with them and attempt to unite the broader Left around economic issues such as this and say the under funding of the NHS which has a minister funded by private health companies. How does that work?

Badly?

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 10:16 am

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 10:14 am

Its time for the unions and the two remaining socialists in the Labour Party to recognise this and cut their ties with them and attempt to unite the broader Left around economic issues such as this and say the under funding of the NHS which has a minister funded by private health companies. How does that work?

Badly?

You ain't seen nuthin' yet.

"The independent peer Lord Darzi, a senior adviser to the government on the NHS, failed to officially declare shareholdings in healthcare companies worth hundreds of thousands of pounds."

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 10:15 am

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 9:51 am Who do they owe money to and why?

Assuming they still follow the usual Macquarie model, it'll be owned by foreign governments and huge foreign pension funds, and debts will be owed to big foreign banks.

The profit made from the normal trading activity of selling water to the people of the UK is extracted to foreign holding companies via management charges and loan interest so that no tax is paid here, nor is any reinvestment made in the infrastructure. The foreign holding companies borrow money from big foreign banks against the future profits from the UK subsidiary's trading activities. The interest on these loans and consultant, legal and accounting fees are all paid from these loans. Any remaining profit/cash is then paid out by the ultimate holding company to the foreign government and huge foreign pension fund owners as dividends.

It's lucky really that these foreign governments are prepared to step in to these complex structures and run our utilities for us, because obviously our governments couldn't do it.

That is the Private Equity model except it has been turbo charged by excessive borrowing to fund bigger dividends.

The Labour published a policy document to remove the Private Equity fund holders' tax break on their "Carried Interest" . For some weird reason that proposal has been dropped. What happened?


Policy proposal:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... d-interest

Why doesn't Parliament pass a bill, something like "Emergency Re-Nationalisation of Public Utilities act" in which it outlines the Nationalisation of the Water Companies. It could stipulate that this is necessary because of the lack of investment in Infrastructure due to excessive dividends paid to shareholders - as such the Water Companies have failed in their duty to maintain and modernise the infrastructure to meet modern requirements. The Water Companies would be compulsorily purchased as an emergency measure to ensure needed investment was made. The needed investment, not performed by the Water Companies, would be very expensive and this cost would be taken into account against purchase price. Shareholders would run a mile and ditch shares overnight.

I know this isn't how it's normally done. Max and Hoover have given good explanations. But why not change the rules in favour of the UK population rather than money grabbing Companies and Shareholders? Or do we just continue to soak it up and watch more sewage dumps in our rivers and the sea whilst costs soar.

But what about the Markets?

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Wed Mar 19, 2025 12:29 pm But what about the Markets?

f*** 'em.