Generally a fan, but I fundamentally disagree with Canadian Prime Minister @MarkJCarney 's suggestion that British taxpayers should compensate Canadian investors if Thames Water is nationalised Thames Water has accumulated approximately £18.5 billion in debt, while customers have endured rising bills, sewage pollution and years of inadequate infrastructure investment. Meanwhile, previous shareholders extracted billions in dividends. Why should British taxpayers now be expected to protect private investors from the consequences of this failed financial model? Investors are entitled to profits and interest, but investments carry risks. They cannot expect to enjoy financial returns when times are good and have the British public absorb their losses when things go wrong. And there's a remarkable contradiction here. Canada's own water and sewage infrastructure is overwhelmingly publicly owned, operated by municipalities in cities including Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Ottawa. If public ownership is appropriate for Canadians, why shouldn't the British public enjoy the same protection? Indeed, shouldn't Britain be investigating whether previous owners and investors should compensate the public for excessive financial extraction, regulatory failures and the costs of repairing neglected infrastructure? Where wrongdoing or unlawful distributions occurred, recovery should be pursued. Legitimate creditors have legal rights, but that does not entitle them to guaranteed repayment at taxpayers' expense. Mr Carney should explain why Canadian financial interests deserve protection while British households are expected to shoulder the consequences of decades of debt accumulation and infrastructure failures. The profits were privatised. The debts and consequences must not now be socialised.