all 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Can someone tell my why the government isn't just buying it back at this point?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Because buying it back is expensive and rescues the capital of those who bought it and asset stripped it (by giving them money for the assets they allowed to deteriorate)

    Allow it to fail, let it go into administration then they can legally seize the assets at no cost to the taxpayer under the law that privatised it in the first place.

    Won't happen of course, despite the route being clear and without legal issue our corrupt govt would prefer to pay our taxes to overseas interests in the expectation of cushy jobs when they're no longer MPs

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago*

    Thames Water has previously said that customers will not be on the hook for the interest on the £3bn loan

    I mean, there's no direct liability, but I'm operating on the assumption that the company's source of income is going to be its customers, and that's the only way it could repay said loan. So even if indirectly, it's gotta come from their pockets.

    I guess if the government nationalizes the company, then taxpayers might wind up paying for the loan, but aside from that...outside of managing to convince unwise creditors to lend more than the company assets are worth and then having debt discharged in bankruptcy, I don't see who else would eat the cost.

  • source