• Echo Dot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    The government doesn’t want the service to collapse because it doesn’t want the cost of nationalising it.

    They might not really want to nationalize it but they’re also aware of public sentiment. They may ultimately decide that it’s worth nationalizing it just to send a message. So you don’t know they won’t nationalize it so the rest of the argument is somewhat irrelevant until that decision is made.

    Your point is that you think that nationalization would end up in a worse situation than it currently is in and honestly I can’t see how that could possibly be the case.

    • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      That’s because you seem to be assuming nationalization has neither an actual nor political cost. It has both.

      Chancellor’s budget had been under a microscope with people wondering how on earth they’ll balance the books without raising taxes on people (as they promised). Chucking in the nationalization of the country’s biggest water supplier like its spare change is nuts.

      Private investment is fine, even preferable, so long as it’s regulated properly. That’s Ofwat’s job. If you don’t think Ofwat can do that job properly then I’m not sure why you’d think similar people would do better running the entirety of TW…