I see! My own view is we must shift business vehicles first - because consumer behaviour is much more sticky (hence focus on tax breaks).
Also 60% of pollution/exhausts = delivery vehicles, buses, cabs.
When nearly all are EVs, prices will have dropped further, more chargers + then switching easy.
Over 56,000 people demand water is put into public ownership, want a referendum if government won’t budge, and have signed this petition in under 2 weeks.
If it gets to 100,000 it has to be debated in Parliament.
82% of people want publicly owned water.
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/76...
Would it change your mind if we rolled out these 5 minute chargers?
www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/ele...
If you need your car to get to work, you should be able to deduct some of those costs. Why should a company be able to, but not a real person?
But getting business to shift to EVs first is crucial - behaviour easier to change + 60% of pollution is delivery vehicles, buses + cabs.
Here are cars with long range starting with 500 miles - there will be something for you soon if governments get qptheir act together and incentivise business properly: www.carwow.co.uk/electric-car...
A key subsidy for fossil fuel vehicles, among many, is the Capital Allowances Act 2001 s 104AA(4) lets business deduct petrol/diesel vehicle purchase costs from tax - even though it will harm the business in petrol costs very quickly.
So we should scrap it: only EV deductions.
If every petrol + gas station had to do this, people would being buying only EVs in no time.
Guess what? Under the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 the UK government can do just this - make every station instal electric charge points.
It should do that now.
A key subsidy for fossil fuel vehicles, among many, is the Capital Allowances Act 2001 s 104AA(4) lets business deduct petrol/diesel vehicle purchase costs from tax - even though it will harm the business in petrol costs very quickly.
So we should scrap it: only EV deductions.
Fairly simple political path:
Step 1: join single market.
Step 2: rejoin the EU.
www.theguardian.com/politics/202...
No justification for giving tax breaks for petrol vehicles any more.
It harms business, consumers and the environment- put the money into drivers’ pockets instead of the pockets of Shell and BP shareholders:
www.theguardian.com/environment/...
Yes way. Don't trust me - trust JP Morgan (bottom left).
The bondholders have got massive returns, over £13bn. They're also responsible for the enormous bills to repair infrastructure building up.
They're sophisticated investors. They took a risk. They should lose.
www.ft.com/content/c300...
At the very least Dan! Maybe update the blog?
It's obvious bondholders/shareholders may sue. They'll have nothing to lose. But they will lose, on any credible view of the law. The only question is whether the government has the guts to do what's right for the British public.
The other point is bondholders are probably also entitled to nothing - explicit in UK law - they get "appropriate value", not "market value".
So in sum, it's obvious shareholders will get nothing. The real question is what about the £21bn debt? £0 again. www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/20...
No. I'm afraid that's very wrong.
Lithgow v UK is the case on compensation for nationalisation in the ECHR, paras 121-122, highlighted:
hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22item...
So if you nationalise TW, you pay fair value - accounting for repair costs, profits already paid out, etc. Closer to £0.
Could possibly you post a link to the report you've been reading? Would be v helpful!
Your proposal is to put TW into a SAR - good.
But then you're saying "bail out the banks, and sell it back to shareholders".
Why would you do that when privatisation has so obviously failed, and 90% of countries have water in public ownership?
Given all your figures are wrong, why not rethink?
The cost of Thames Water capital is 9.75% on the latest loan. That's double most people's mortgages, because TW is such a basket case. Why do you not see this privatisation cost as "prohibitive"?
The cheapest borrowing cost is the public sector, close to the Bank of England's base rate.
No. The investors did not win "full compensation". They claimed $1.2bn and after 9 years they got $405m.
Why are you publishing things that are so obviously incorrect and easy to check?
Btw, that's $405m for a water service serving about 8m people. TW serves 16m.
en.mercopress.com/2015/04/10/a...
Thames Water's assets are not worth £15-19bn - that's for the birds. You've quoted consultants who were paid for by Thames Water.
KKR bid £4bn for a majority stake, and then pulled out because even that cost too much: www.theguardian.com/business/202...
Did you find a link to the Teneo report?
The trouble is that you can't sell a water company's assets without the regulator's consent, so all the value of the enterprise is based on predicted cash flow over cost (mainly: how much can we make from bills vs. repairs).
And KKR bid £4bn.
No, sadly not.
TW has statutory duties to provide clean water, and secondary treatment of all sewage. So cost of repairs to meet those duties has to be factored into the value - £23bn is estimated.
Moreover they can’t sell assets, so their trade value is £0. They can only get cashflow from bills.
Does Thames Water have £15-19bn value? It does according to consultants hired by... Thames Water. But on any credible view of the law, TW is worth £0 - which is why shareholders like USS wrote off their stake.
This blog is full of serious errors, and unfortunately repeats the worst lobbyist lies.👇
How do we stop private equity being subsidised by government for sacking British workers?
We ensure enterprise liability trumps limited corporate liability - so people pay their debts, instead of profiting from wrongs.
Excellent story by @willdunn.bsky.social
www.newstatesman.com/business/202...
We need public funding and public options to replace Big Tech corporations that threaten democracy and society. Stop Zuckerberg, Musk, Bezos, and Page/Brin calling the shots + profiting by exploiting our data.
But how?
This is an excellent read, very carefully written + thought through.👇
🧵 New report just dropped 🚨 "Fractured Reality: How Democracy Can Win the Global Struggle Over the Information Space" — from the EU Joint Research Centre, led by Mario Scharfbillig and I. A landmark read for anyone working on disinformation, platforms & democracy. 👇
1/10
Yes - most. To do so would be outside what we'd call a "reasonable range of responses".
To be fair, I think you're right that there could be stuff we don't know. But we'd expect Waitrose to be yelling out loud why it was justified given the size of the story already. I guess we'll find out soon...
No. If there are reasons why the dismissal was fair, the employer will have to state them publicly, now or at Tribunal. They don’t have some kind of right to secrecy. The employee if anything should have got a warning.
Branding him a “have a go hero” is bold unless you have special info. Do you?
I agree with the Tories that a Waitrose employee who confronted shoplifters should never have been fired. It’s a nasty case of unfair dismissal.
But the Tories tried to abolish unfair dismissal when they last got into power, and they gutted Tribunals.
Nastier.
www.theguardian.com/business/202...
Read this: epic waste on consultants by uni VCs, superbly critiqued by @gsoh31.bsky.social. We need a positive substitute to this "hawking".
There's a gaping gulf between uni practice + real research on the "Big Con" by @rosiecollington.bsky.social+@mazzucatom.bsky.social
www.ft.com/content/5032...
Sadly, we lost our complaint on the UCU election, which had a margin of 182 votes from 114,310 members.
The Certification Officer gave no weight to the 4 whistleblowers because they remained anonymous. The CO has rarely given a remedy + that trend continued. We're so grateful for all the support.