Reclaiming the Future – the founding essay of @arguablymag.bsky.social
To defy the twin foes of populism and fatalism, progressives must put ideas back at the centre of their politics and draw on the greatest thinkers from their past: Keynes, Crosland and Rawls. www.arguably.uk/p/reclaiming...
Could street votes be the key to unlocking the UK’s housing crisis? Our new paper with @britishprogress.org explores how ministers could turn to residents to help create thousands of new homes.
Hope that clarifies several points for everyone
and then on Argentina parallel. Maybe full was imprecise in the report, I probably should have said "fair". But I don't think that changes the substance of the analogy - the Argentinian government did have to pay the "fair value" for the asset and had to fight a long-running court case!!
They want to show that SAR is bad and therefore maximise the difference in enterprise value between the deal option and the SAR option. This involves wanting in fact a lower SAR enterprise value!
On the veracity of Teneo's estimate, it is a sworn court document (and the best/only estimate out there). However, if they did have any incentives to put a thumb on the scale, it's unclear that they would try and inflate the number.
Now you would only find out the "fair" enterprise value of Thames given its regulatory obligations with a bidding process.
This is why I disagree with the conclusions of Teneo's report for Thames and oppose a deal that waters down regulatory requirements and think allowing SAR is a better course.
The £15bn cited in the report is an estimate by Teneo of the enterprise value of Thames after SAR. Whereas the KKR figure of £4bn and similarly the fact USS has been wiped out refer to the equity value.
As @jamestovey.bsky.social says the enterprise value is most relevant for nationalisation.
Thanks for all of your responses Ewan, I wrote the piece because I thought there was a lack of clarity and specificity in the debate and maybe I'll clarify some things here too!
That leaves keeping it privatised, but we have to make capitalism have consequences.
Reports on the creditors' current offer suggest it would leave Thames with ~£20bn of debt and suspend pollution targets.
The government should reject it and let Thames go into special administration. 5/6
A not-for-profit model (like Welsh Water) isn't the answer either.
Thames would be the UK's second largest non-profit with unprecedented debt levels. The cost of capital would be prohibitive and Welsh Water's own sewage record shows it's no silver bullet for pollution. 4/6
Zack Polanski is calling for zero-cost nationalisation. This is a serious mistake.
Look at Argentina, it tried exactly this in 2006. After 12 years of arbitration investors won full compensation anyway. The UK has signed the same international investment treaties, we'd face the same fate. 3/6
Could nationalisation work in principle?
Yes, but it comes at a price. Berlin paid in full when it renationalised its water in 2012. Thames' assets are worth £15-19bn.
I'd rather see that money fund five new tram networks in cities like Leeds than hand it to Thames' creditors. 2/6
I know nationalising Thames Water sounds appealing, especially if you're on the left.
But in a blog post today I argue it's actually the least progressive option available.
If we care about clean rivers and lower bills, we need to make privatisation work. Here's my argument: 1/6
Speedrunning Tesco – plus mixed feelings about Artemis, Mormon gambling, and a council finance nightmare. (Odds and Ends #93)
takes.jamesomalley.co.uk/p/speedrunni...
We've got a new game that puts you in the shoes of a council leader. Try to win re-election and avoid bankruptcy - it's difficult...
Only by fundamental structural reform can we rebuild trust between residents and their councils. A fair local tax should pay for local services that most people see and use.
For how we actually do that see my recent paper "Fixing the Shopfront of the State": www.labourtogether.uk/all-reports/...
It is exactly this kind of remark that causes residents to lose trust in their council and in political parties.
Kemi says "Lower taxes" but in reality West Sussex increased council tax by the maximum amount possible of 4.99%
This is the absurdity of local government at the moment writ large.
If Labour wants to show that government can work, it has to start where people actually see the state. That means fixing the everyday services that shape people’s lives — and fixing the broken funding model behind them.
My argument is that we can’t fix this with small changes around the edges. We need a bigger reform: fund adult social care nationally, and replace council tax and stamp duty with a fairer tax on property.
A big reason for this is that councils have been left trying to absorb rising adult social care costs from a tax base that was never designed for it.
The result is that more and more money goes into meeting those pressures, while the visible local services people rely on get squeezed.
That frustration is real, and it’s politically dangerous. When the basics stop working, people lose faith that government can deliver anything at all.