Re the three June elections since 1945 the dates were:
18 June 1970 9 June 1983 11 June 1987
Suggesting earlier rather than later in the month.
2001 was also June.
As was 2017
Then it was not 3 but 5?
Argh! This is like a bad version of the Spanish Inquisition sketch. It’s my fault for using the wikipedia list which splits the centuries. So here they are:
18 June 1970 9 June 1983 11 June 1987 7 June 2001 8 June 2017
If I was under 30 I think that the triple lock would have me looking seriously for emigration. It is an outrageous penalty on the young and poor for the benefit of the old and comfortable.
The full state pension is currently a meagre £10,600 pa, lower than most (all?) comparable countries, and not much to live on if a pensioner has no other significant source of income. It would be better policy to maintain the triple lock until the differential narrows further, while at the same time using the tax system to claw back much more money from those who also benefit from a significant private/public sector pension and/or large savings.
It isn't a lot.
However, imagine a world with 30 people in it. 10 are pensioners. 5 are stay at home parents or otherwise not working. 5 are children. And 10 are in work.
In that scenario, £10k of every worker's income goes off to pay pensions, before *any* other expenses.
The issue is not the size of the pension, it is the fact that what was affordable when you had lots of people of working age, and few pensioners, becomes very unaffordable if you have rising life expectancy and a low birth rate.
The alternative is to raise the retirement age of course (having duly notified everyone as per the WASPI women who seem strikingly uninterested in any news).
Before we raise the pension age too far, is it actually feasible to have 70-year-old brickies, roofers and firefighters? It's a bit like the PB Covid WFH discussion when we've all got cosy white collar jobs and the most strenuous thing we do all day is open a laptop. How many 70-year-old nurses does it take to turn a patient over?
Also unless things change, currently life expectancy has peaked and isn't growing any more, actually it might be falling.
So why is future pensioners retirement age being lifted to pay for current pensioners getting increases?
Especially given its the boomer generation that is unaffordable and didn't save and public savings for their own retirement despite knowing about the demographics for decades.
Yes as Foxy rightly pointed out peoples health is now deteriorating. The point foxy made about covid damaging peoples frontal lobes is extremely worrying. We could both be looking at lower life expectancy and economic decline.
What utter tosh:
People under the age of 40 are dramatically healthier than their parents, they don't smoke, they dribk less and they are much more likely to exercise.
If you look at metrics like blood pressure, resting heart rate, etc., then the young adults of today are in dramatically better shape than their parents.
Have you seen the levels of obesity about now. Your argument may just hold in a global city like London but not in the rest of the uk. Look at photos from the 1970s people were much slimmer. They were also much more active pre computers and smartphones.
All the data is publicly available, and - yes - we are (on average) a bit fatter.
But that is literally the only stat that has moved in the wrong direction. Every other measure of public health, particularly for the young, has moved for the better.
And that's true everywhere in the UK, not just in London.
British lige expectancy has fared worse than any other major economy 🤷
A lot of this (but not all) is immigration. We are importing people from poor countries with bad health and bad diets, and a tendency to do dysgenic things, so the overall life expectancy goes down, child mortality goes up, and so on
Ditto America
"They’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re bringing bad habits and terrible diets. And some, I assume, are good people.”
What I am saying is not controversial
We have a lot of immigration from Pakistan. In Pakistan life expectancy is 66
If you import a lot of Pakistanis then UK national life expectancy will, on average, decline. Ditto African countries, India, Bangladesh, and so forth. As the migrants assimilate one can hope that their life expectancy will improve, but it won't if they keep importing brides and husbands from the homeland, and it really won't improve if these spouses are first cousins
You strain quite hard to blame immigrants for an awful lot of things. Not sure why. Bit of 'lib baiting' perchance? Like with all the "importance of IQ" talk. Yes, very possibly. I prefer that explanation to the main alternative anyway.
Just reading Trump's quote again, though, it's pretty hilarious. "They aren't sending their best. They aren't sending YOU" he says ... directly to the teeming mass of bottom drawer knuckle-draggers who make up his MAGA rally crowds.
It's just a fact. A lot of our gravest problems - from housing to healthcare - stem from an insane policy of mass immigration into an already crowded country with already creaking infrastructure. Migration is at lunatic levels now - 1.4m in two years. This is utterly unsustainable (and the Tories must take the blame for much of this, they've had 14 years to fix it and actually made it worse)
This might make effete lefties like you uncomfortable, but it is the case. I'm not saying it to "bait" anyone, I'm saying it because it is the truth, and until the nation faces up to this, things will only get worse. Importing millions of people, as a matter of policy, is a Ponzi scheme
it will be very interesting to see where Starmer goes on this
It is not a 'fact' that a lot of our gravest problems stem from immigration. It's an opinion arising from a mental image. In this case the mental image is that of 'us' here on 'our' little island being compromised and crowded out by too many of 'them' from places 'we' have no affinity for. That's where you start, because that's how you feel, and you go looking for 'data' and 'argument' to support it. But it's the feeling that's authentic not the data or the argument.
So you think we can import 1.4m people every two years for ever and ever, and it will never cause problems. That is the reductio ad absurdam of your stance
You're not a serious person, really, are you? You are a cluster of quasi-fashionable opinions, to which you have never really applied much thought
No, that rate isn't tenable for long. I doubt anybody thinks otherwise.
I don't know about how 'serious' a person I am. I do often find myself more interested in why people say certain things than I am in what they are saying.
Eg here with you and immigration.
Has it ever occurred to you that my life would be MUCH easier if I just went with the flow and agreed with all the feeble Woke bollocks that you believe? For a quiet life?
Because it would make things a whole lot simpler. For me. Flint knapping is a very left wing industry, and anyone with even vaguely right of centre opinions treads a significantly dangerous path. I could therefore just pretend to be a Woke idiot, and have a much easier time. I have friends who do exactly that, I know they are Tory or rightwing or have firm views on culture wars, migration, trans, etc etc etc, but they zip their mouths because they work in media/arts/academe/law, and they pretend they are leftwing, or they pretend they are neutral and have no political beliefs at all
However, I cannot deny what I see with my own eyes, and I am not going to dumb myself down
What do you risk, intellectually and professionally, being yet another lefty in Hampstead? Absolutely nothing
You are very typical of your late Boomer/early Gen X age cohort - Johnny Rotten, Julie Burchill, Tony Parsons, Toby Young, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees Mogg etc etc.
I’m really not. A lot of those people started on the left and moved right
Others are from posho Tory families
I was right wing fron the age of about 14 when i realised that it is a better representation of reality. If anything I have mellowed since my early ultra-libertarian days
I do sometimes enjoy being contrary, which makes up for the undoubted hassle and danger of being right wing in my world
I was at school with Toby Young. He hasn't changed.
Being right wing when we were young was far more normal than it is now.
You have a ready audience for your views in the Spectator, the Telegraph etc. Given how the New Statesman is going, you might even have a chance there. Spruce up and you could make it onto GBNews! And you have made your money, so there is no huge pressure to conform to the whims of younger commissioning editors. It's really not risky for boomers to spout right wing opinions. Most have them. Our generation is the Tories' last bastion - and where would Reform be without blokes over the age of 55?
I don't know who you are talking about, my second job is writing for the Gazette. My first job is knapping sex toys, and let me assure you the young staff in most lithic pleasure-gizmo offices are incredibly Woke, it's almost as bad as, say, publishing - where anyone with a vaguely rightwing stance keeps completely quiet if they want a nice career
Why is 'right wing' incompatible with any sane definition of 'woke' ?
Wasn't slavery bad? Are we equal at birth, regardless of colour, background, ethnicity, sex, etc?
Its entirely possible to be both. I am unabashedly both right wing and woke, unless you include either veganism or anti car mentality within woke.
That just means you identify as a Woke, not that you are one.
Shareholders and bond holders made their choice to invest. They should own the consequences of their choices.
Because they'll nationalise it in a Tory fashion not in a 'how consequences of capitalism should function when it fails ' way
If they nationalise it, they're idiots.
If they bailout the bond holders, they're borderline corrupt.
There is no reason to get involved whatsoever. We have bankruptcy procedures, they should be followed. If nobody else steps in to buy the assets then the state should pick them up for £1 if nobody else offers any more.
I guess the problem is that £1 might be a lot more than the assets and liabilities of TW are worth.
Think of it like an inkjet printer. The problem isn't the purchase price as much as the future costs it exposes you to.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
From what I’ve seen, a chunk of the problem was that utilities were seen as no-risk investments. “No way to fail”….
So pension funds, foreign and domestic piled in.
Then you have the Treasury and the Foreigners Office arguing strongly against enforcement and tightening regulations.
At the same time you had competition - of a kind. To be the highest returning no-risk investment.
I guess election fever was always likely as we entered the 5th year of the parliament but it’s exacerbated by Sunak’s woes. The trouble is, the more the media, rebels, and the Opposition circulate the idea the more it generates its own momentum.
PMs who drag their heels or dither usually fare even worse than had they gone a little earlier: John Major, Gordon Brown, and arguably Jim Callaghan being examples.
There hasn’t been a July election since 1945 and that was pretty exceptional. There hasn’t been an August one in the modern era.
However, there’s plenty of good, solid, precedence for a June election.
Personally I tend to the view that the Conservatives might do least badly in June than any of the remaining 7 alternatives.
Not June. This involves regrouping immediately after the 2nd May results. For a late June election Parliament dissolves on 22nd May, with an announcement several days at least before. This won't happen.
Lets play the scenario. Locals Thursday 2nd May - results clear on Friday 3rd May. Its a bank holiday weekend - 3 days of absolute political mayhem Parliament comes back Tuesday 7th May. Rows. Emergency meeting of the 1922 Committee Thursday 9th May. Rows. Weekend of even more political chaos. Monday 13th May - Mrs Brady puts his best smug grin on and goes to Downing Street with a pearl revolver Sunak has three choices - stay and fight, quit, or call the palace. If he calls the palace and they accept, then a couple of days to mop up and we get an election on Thursday 20th - or 27th June.
What if the palace says no? Lascelles convention would apply, especially if "can I have a dissolution please" is in response to being told his leadership is untenable...
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
The government does fine itself, but it means nothing to anyone. If the government makes a loss, or fines itself, then some spreadsheet numbers move but nothing changes.
If a private firm receives a fine, or makes a loss, then it owns the consequences.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility, even for something like water. But there needs to be appropriate regulation too, including most important a firm hand issuing fines for any breaches of standards.
What major innovation is possible with water?
With power, you have generation, and even possibly supply. With telecoms... well, that's obvious. But water? Perrier to our taps?
Plenty of innovations are possible with water. Plenty of innovations have happened with water and more should in the future.
Improved sewage treatment so that waste isn't discharged. Pre-privatisation, 77% of water was treated to legal standards, today that figure stands at 99%. Fines should continue until that figure reaches 100%
Improved maintenance of the network so there's less leaks.
Improved detection of leaks.
Etc, etc, etc
Basically do a good job and make a profit, do a bad job you lose money.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
Monday 13th May - Mrs Brady puts his best smug grin on and goes to Downing Street with a pearl revolver Sunak has three choices - stay and fight, quit, or call the palace. If he calls the palace and they accept, then a couple of days to mop up and we get an election on Thursday 20th - or 27th June.
What if the palace says no?
What if the King is unable to meet the PM.
A Royal funeral could REALLY mess up the timetable
Shareholders and bond holders made their choice to invest. They should own the consequences of their choices.
Because they'll nationalise it in a Tory fashion not in a 'how consequences of capitalism should function when it fails ' way
If they nationalise it, they're idiots.
If they bailout the bond holders, they're borderline corrupt.
There is no reason to get involved whatsoever. We have bankruptcy procedures, they should be followed. If nobody else steps in to buy the assets then the state should pick them up for £1 if nobody else offers any more.
I guess the problem is that £1 might be a lot more than the assets and liabilities of TW are worth.
Think of it like an inkjet printer. The problem isn't the purchase price as much as the future costs it exposes you to.
Who said sell the liabilities?
If it goes bankrupt, then you sell the assets for whatever you can get and any stakeholders get burnt down whatever was raised.
If anyone buys the assets for just £1, then the bondholders should share that £1 between them. Realistically the assets will be worth more than £1, and if its not enough to cover the liabilities then that's just too bad for the bondholders.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
The government does fine itself, but it means nothing to anyone. If the government makes a loss, or fines itself, then some spreadsheet numbers move but nothing changes.
If a private firm receives a fine, or makes a loss, then it owns the consequences.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility, even for something like water. But there needs to be appropriate regulation too, including most important a firm hand issuing fines for any breaches of standards.
What major innovation is possible with water?
With power, you have generation, and even possibly supply. With telecoms... well, that's obvious. But water? Perrier to our taps?
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
The government does fine itself, but it means nothing to anyone. If the government makes a loss, or fines itself, then some spreadsheet numbers move but nothing changes.
If a private firm receives a fine, or makes a loss, then it owns the consequences.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility, even for something like water. But there needs to be appropriate regulation too, including most important a firm hand issuing fines for any breaches of standards.
What major innovation is possible with water?
With power, you have generation, and even possibly supply. With telecoms... well, that's obvious. But water? Perrier to our taps?
Quooker in every home…
Not sure about innovation per se, but supply is riddled with leaks. And sewerage is far too often being over whelmed by rainwater run off.
How about incorporating rain water collection and storage to flush toilets? It’s crazy that we use potable water for that.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
I guess election fever was always likely as we entered the 5th year of the parliament but it’s exacerbated by Sunak’s woes. The trouble is, the more the media, rebels, and the Opposition circulate the idea the more it generates its own momentum.
PMs who drag their heels or dither usually fare even worse than had they gone a little earlier: John Major, Gordon Brown, and arguably Jim Callaghan being examples.
There hasn’t been a July election since 1945 and that was pretty exceptional. There hasn’t been an August one in the modern era.
However, there’s plenty of good, solid, precedence for a June election.
Personally I tend to the view that the Conservatives might do least badly in June than any of the remaining 7 alternatives.
Not June. This involves regrouping immediately after the 2nd May results. For a late June election Parliament dissolves on 22nd May, with an announcement several days at least before. This won't happen.
Lets play the scenario. Locals Thursday 2nd May - results clear on Friday 3rd May. Its a bank holiday weekend - 3 days of absolute political mayhem Parliament comes back Tuesday 7th May. Rows. Emergency meeting of the 1922 Committee Thursday 9th May. Rows. Weekend of even more political chaos. Monday 13th May - Mrs Brady puts his best smug grin on and goes to Downing Street with a pearl revolver Sunak has three choices - stay and fight, quit, or call the palace. If he calls the palace and they accept, then a couple of days to mop up and we get an election on Thursday 20th - or 27th June.
What if the palace says no? Lascelles convention would apply, especially if "can I have a dissolution please" is in response to being told his leadership is untenable...
Rishi only needs 30 loyalists who will not accept a change of leader and he can tell kc3 nobody can command the confidence of the House under any circs.
Edit - or he faces the Vonc which is called very swiftly and wins (fairly easily) then he goes to the Palace
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
Privatisation has worked. If Thames go bust, then that's the free market working as it should, badly managed firms should go bust.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
The government does fine itself, but it means nothing to anyone. If the government makes a loss, or fines itself, then some spreadsheet numbers move but nothing changes.
If a private firm receives a fine, or makes a loss, then it owns the consequences.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility, even for something like water. But there needs to be appropriate regulation too, including most important a firm hand issuing fines for any breaches of standards.
What major innovation is possible with water?
With power, you have generation, and even possibly supply. With telecoms... well, that's obvious. But water? Perrier to our taps?
There was that lad who could turn it into wine.
Whatever happened to him?
It’s a simple trick really, just need a bit of fruit, some sugar and some yeast, I don’t see why everyone bangs on about it really.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
Privatisation has worked. If Thames go bust, then that's the free market working as it should, badly managed firms should go bust.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
Privatisation has worked. If Thames go bust, then that's the free market working as it should, badly managed firms should go bust.
In the Alabama State House "special election" (by-election), a Trump district has been won by the Democrats with a 25% margin. Polling getting it completely wrong. Again.
Remember Sunak has said several times that his working assumption is GE is in second half of year.
If he now goes for June everyone will say why have you changed your mind, you are in a huge panic.
Won't look good which is why I suspect he won't do it.
People love predicting early GEs - goodness knows how many times they have been predicted on here over the years - they almost never happen - only exception is Theresa May in 2017.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
Privatisation has worked. If Thames go bust, then that's the free market working as it should, badly managed firms should go bust.
Monday 13th May - Mrs Brady puts his best smug grin on and goes to Downing Street with a pearl revolver Sunak has three choices - stay and fight, quit, or call the palace. If he calls the palace and they accept, then a couple of days to mop up and we get an election on Thursday 20th - or 27th June.
What if the palace says no?
What if the King is unable to meet the PM.
A Royal funeral could REALLY mess up the timetable
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
I do and so does everyone I know. They are a thousand times worse.
They are in atrocious state now. Have you actually talked to anyone in the EA? Or surfers? (See for example, Surfers Against Sewage)
By the way, do you use trains? I do every week, often multiple times. Another example of a complete shambles at present. No BR wasn’t brilliant but the point is that after 14 years of Conservative Government these utilities should all be soooooooooooooooo much better.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
Privatisation has worked. If Thames go bust, then that's the free market working as it should, badly managed firms should go bust.
As that article says, we have only been monitoring properly for a few years, so have no real knowledge of how things were previously. Measurement is the first step to driving change. There is plenty of traction for this now, and not just from insufferable Guardian reading wild-swimmers. Although it’s mostly them.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
The government does fine itself, but it means nothing to anyone. If the government makes a loss, or fines itself, then some spreadsheet numbers move but nothing changes.
If a private firm receives a fine, or makes a loss, then it owns the consequences.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility, even for something like water. But there needs to be appropriate regulation too, including most important a firm hand issuing fines for any breaches of standards.
What major innovation is possible with water?
With power, you have generation, and even possibly supply. With telecoms... well, that's obvious. But water? Perrier to our taps?
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
Privatisation has worked. If Thames go bust, then that's the free market working as it should, badly managed firms should go bust.
Don't give the Tories ideas they will nick in an autumn statement Gordon!!
Robert Peston @Peston · 41m Gordon Brown says the government can raise billions of pounds from banks. Read details in attached blog and watch full interview on #Peston at 10.45 ITV and via @itvpeston on X at 9
Eek. Absolutely right. What is he doing? They will simply pinch any good ideas (as proven by the nondoms and windfall tax debacles).
KEEP MUM.
Don't forget, Gordon Brown's wizard wheezes have, by and large, been terrible. This may well be a subtle plan to cause another Tory disaster just before the election.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
Privatisation has worked. If Thames go bust, then that's the free market working as it should, badly managed firms should go bust.
As that article says, we have only been monitoring properly for a few years, so have no real knowledge of how things were previously. Measurement is the first step to driving change. There is plenty of traction for this now, and not just from insufferable Guardian reading wild-swimmers. Although it’s mostly them.
Will he do it? I doubt it. I think Rishi is basically a ditherer. So my guess is he will finally call it in the autumn, if he can survive the probable post May 2nd fallout.
It's worth pointing out June elections are often decided on the back of "favourable" May local election results.
That was certainly the case in 1983, 1987, and 2017.
2001 was down to the foot and mouth outbreak which necessitated a delay as parts of the country were still struggling with the outbreak.
1970 is perhaps the most illuminating - Labour did pretty well in the local elections recovering a lot of the ground lost in the 1968 disaster. The Liberals did very badly which was a precursor of their poor result in the following month's election. Labour thought the local elections proved they could regain power but it didn't - Heath and the Conservatives won a majority of 30.
1970 and 2017 are the two examples of a governing party having a decent set of local results but going backwards in the resulting GE campaign.
1983 and 1987 are possibly atypcial given the dominance of Thatcher and the Conservatives.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
I do and so does everyone I know. They are a thousand times worse.
They are in atrocious state now. Have you actually talked to anyone in the EA? Or surfers? (See for example, Surfers Against Sewage)
By the way, do you use trains? I do every week, often multiple times. Another example of a complete shambles at present. No BR wasn’t brilliant but the point is that after 14 years of Conservative Government these utilities should all be soooooooooooooooo much better.
There are no excuses left for them.
You're a fool or a liar if you're claiming water is worse today than it was pre-privatisation. Its objective fact that the waterways are far better today than they were in the 1970s and 1980s.
No I don't use trains, I drive as do most of the country. But rail use has doubled post-privatisation after decades of decline under nationalisation.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
I do and so does everyone I know. They are a thousand times worse.
They are in atrocious state now. Have you actually talked to anyone in the EA?
By the way, do you use trains? I do every week, often multiple times. Another example of a complete shambles at present. No BR wasn’t brilliant but the point is that after 14 years of Conservative Government these utilities should all be soooooooooooooooo much better.
There are no excuses left for them.
They are not 'a thousand times worse'. Far, far from.
What has changed is the amount of monitoring and analysis. The amount of chemical and human sh*t being dumped into our water decades ago was frightening. Which was why so many rivers were ecologically dead.
And the railways are better than pre-privatisation. If you want to look at one area I've not mentioned: timetables.
But in the case of water, I think the improvements have occurred despite privatisation, not because of it. regulation has caused the improvements.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
Privatisation has worked. If Thames go bust, then that's the free market working as it should, badly managed firms should go bust.
Remember Sunak has said several times that his working assumption is GE is in second half of year.
If he now goes for June everyone will say why have you changed your mind, you are in a huge panic.
Won't look good which is why I suspect he won't do it.
So: June - because he has to (putsch straight after locals cataclysm) July / August - because he has to - government collapses before the summer recess on 23rd July
Then we're back to the usual lunacy of why elections in September / October / November / December / January are BAD IDEAS.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
Privatisation has worked. If Thames go bust, then that's the free market working as it should, badly managed firms should go bust.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
I do and so does everyone I know. They are a thousand times worse.
They are in atrocious state now. Have you actually talked to anyone in the EA? Or surfers? (See for example, Surfers Against Sewage)
By the way, do you use trains? I do every week, often multiple times. Another example of a complete shambles at present. No BR wasn’t brilliant but the point is that after 14 years of Conservative Government these utilities should all be soooooooooooooooo much better.
There are no excuses left for them.
They are not. We have only been measuring these kind of incidents for the last few years. Thirty years ago rivers like the Thames were dead zones, hardly and fish etc. Vastly improved now. Yes we have a specific problem, partly related to climate change, partly to poorly built new housing developments and, whisper it quietly, all those tarmacked over drives.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
I do and so does everyone I know. They are a thousand times worse.
They are in atrocious state now. Have you actually talked to anyone in the EA?
By the way, do you use trains? I do every week, often multiple times. Another example of a complete shambles at present. No BR wasn’t brilliant but the point is that after 14 years of Conservative Government these utilities should all be soooooooooooooooo much better.
There are no excuses left for them.
They are not 'a thousand times worse'. Far, far from.
What has changed is the amount of monitoring and analysis. The amount of chemical and human sh*t being dumped into our water decades ago was frightening. Which was why so many rivers were ecologically dead.
And the railways are better than pre-privatisation. If you want to look at one area I've not mentioned: timetables.
But in the case of water, I think the improvements have occurred despite privatisation, not because of it. regulation has caused the improvements.
Regulation existed before privatisation. The regulations were being ignored and nothing was done about it pre-privatisation.
Privatisation put a profit motive onto obeying the regulations. It gave accountability.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
Privatisation has worked. If Thames go bust, then that's the free market working as it should, badly managed firms should go bust.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
Privatisation has worked. If Thames go bust, then that's the free market working as it should, badly managed firms should go bust.
As that article says, we have only been monitoring properly for a few years, so have no real knowledge of how things were previously. Measurement is the first step to driving change. There is plenty of traction for this now, and not just from insufferable Guardian reading wild-swimmers. Although it’s mostly them.
Mind you Green councillors oppose solar farms in their area all the time.
Bart is someone I rarely agree with but he is right on his "Screw the NIMBY" view.
Solar farms are an eyesore and generate leccy when we don't need it, and don't generate when we do.
I'd be opposing them if I was a councillor.
There's no such thing as leccy when we don't need it.
Especially as we become more battery based.
You're typical NIMBY scum, with all due respect. Opposing housing, infrastructure, utilities, all par for the course.
There is also no such thing as food when we don't need it, and that's a much better use of agricultural land. I am disappointed that as an avowed free marketeer you are so vituperative in your defence of a poor method of power generation that is incapable of surviving in this country without subsidy, or forcing companies into energy purchase agreements via legislation. Even solar farms in Arizona have difficulties with viability - their presence in rainy Britain is an affront to common sense and the free market.
What subsidies? There haven't been any on solar for many years now.
As a free marketeer if someone wants to use their own land to generate power then they should be able to do so.
Their land, their choice, free market.
Myth.
A power purchasing agreement absolutely functions as a subsidy - what else do you call forcing a commercial entity into an agreement to buy power from a particular supplier for an extended period?
Yet “subsidy-free” is a nebulous phrase that means different things to different people. In fact, many of the “subsidy-free” schemes announced over the past 12 months would not meet the purest interpretations of the term.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
I do and so does everyone I know. They are a thousand times worse.
They are in atrocious state now. Have you actually talked to anyone in the EA? Or surfers? (See for example, Surfers Against Sewage)
By the way, do you use trains? I do every week, often multiple times. Another example of a complete shambles at present. No BR wasn’t brilliant but the point is that after 14 years of Conservative Government these utilities should all be soooooooooooooooo much better.
There are no excuses left for them.
They are not. We have only been measuring these kind of incidents for the last few years. Thirty years ago rivers like the Thames were dead zones, hardly and fish etc. Vastly improved now. Yes we have a specific problem, partly related to climate change, partly to poorly built new housing developments and, whisper it quietly, all those tarmacked over drives.
Plus intense agriculture. The Wye is very much poisoned by chicken farms
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
I do and so does everyone I know. They are a thousand times worse.
They are in atrocious state now. Have you actually talked to anyone in the EA? Or surfers? (See for example, Surfers Against Sewage)
By the way, do you use trains? I do every week, often multiple times. Another example of a complete shambles at present. No BR wasn’t brilliant but the point is that after 14 years of Conservative Government these utilities should all be soooooooooooooooo much better.
There are no excuses left for them.
They are not. We have only been measuring these kind of incidents for the last few years. Thirty years ago rivers like the Thames were dead zones, hardly and fish etc. Vastly improved now. Yes we have a specific problem, partly related to climate change, partly to poorly built new housing developments and, whisper it quietly, all those tarmacked over drives.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
Privatisation has worked. If Thames go bust, then that's the free market working as it should, badly managed firms should go bust.
As that article says, we have only been monitoring properly for a few years, so have no real knowledge of how things were previously. Measurement is the first step to driving change. There is plenty of traction for this now, and not just from insufferable Guardian reading wild-swimmers. Although it’s mostly them.
The alternative narrative is that the water companies have just been getting away with it for decades. 35 years.
The problem with the "privatisation has made the water better" argument is that you can't measure the counterfactual of what would have happened if it had stayed in public hands.
The water companies have been rumbled and no amount of bleating about NIMBYism or increased monitoring is gonna save them.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
Privatisation has worked. If Thames go bust, then that's the free market working as it should, badly managed firms should go bust.
As that article says, we have only been monitoring properly for a few years, so have no real knowledge of how things were previously. Measurement is the first step to driving change. There is plenty of traction for this now, and not just from insufferable Guardian reading wild-swimmers. Although it’s mostly them.
Boat Race rowers told not to enter Thames due to high levels of E. coli
Yep. It’s classic of ideologues to do something like this. Go back far enough before data was properly collated then apply a different set of measuring tools and data currently in use and then claim that it proves your argument. It goes on all the time on twitter.
It’s too wearisome to explain to a fanatic. And because it doesn’t matter for now, because the zeal for excessive privatisation won’t return to the centre ground for another decade or more, it’s a waste of time refuting it in detail.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
Privatisation has worked. If Thames go bust, then that's the free market working as it should, badly managed firms should go bust.
If you’re wondering what happened to Thames Water this is a good summary.
They borrowed billions and paid it to execs and shareholders.
Now it needs investment they want customers to pay more. If it goes bankrupt taxpayers will pick up the bill.
If it goes bankrupt then shareholders and bondholders should pick up the bill.
Not the taxpayers responsibility at all.
That's a positive for free markets, not a negative, privatise the gains and privatise the losses.
There is no excuse, reason or justification for a bailout.
I'm not sure if you're describing the 'in theory' or 'in practice'?
Both.
In practice firms go bust and their assets are sold and their shareholders and bondholders and other stakeholders lose out without a taxpayer bailout all the bloody time.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
Privatisation has worked. If Thames go bust, then that's the free market working as it should, badly managed firms should go bust.
As that article says, we have only been monitoring properly for a few years, so have no real knowledge of how things were previously. Measurement is the first step to driving change. There is plenty of traction for this now, and not just from insufferable Guardian reading wild-swimmers. Although it’s mostly them.
Boat Race rowers told not to enter Thames due to high levels of E. coli
The ownership of water companies is a red herring. What makes our environment better - our water bodies, our air, our biodiversity - is regulation.
You can have good or bad regulation with the right or wrong penalties or inspection systems in a privatised or a public ownership model.
Look back through the last couple of centuries of British life, and so many of the things that make human existence better than it was are down to regulation. Of workplaces, consumer safety, pollution, food standards, financial services, advertising, holidays… yet regulation still somehow has a bad name.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
Privatisation has worked. If Thames go bust, then that's the free market working as it should, badly managed firms should go bust.
As that article says, we have only been monitoring properly for a few years, so have no real knowledge of how things were previously. Measurement is the first step to driving change. There is plenty of traction for this now, and not just from insufferable Guardian reading wild-swimmers. Although it’s mostly them.
The alternative narrative is that the water companies have just been getting away with it for decades. 35 years.
The problem with the "privatisation has made the water better" argument is that you can't measure the counterfactual of what would have happened if it had stayed in public hands.
The water companies have been rumbled and no amount of bleating about NIMBYism or increased monitoring is gonna save them.
Who wants to save them?
If they're badly managed they should go bust. They should be liquidated (no pun intended) and their assets sold to a new firm at pennies on the pound, the liabilities resolved by whatever revenue is raised and the rest written off by those who made bad investments, and the new firm should either do a good job and make a profit, or a bad job and face the same fate as its predecessor.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
Privatisation has worked. If Thames go bust, then that's the free market working as it should, badly managed firms should go bust.
As that article says, we have only been monitoring properly for a few years, so have no real knowledge of how things were previously. Measurement is the first step to driving change. There is plenty of traction for this now, and not just from insufferable Guardian reading wild-swimmers. Although it’s mostly them.
Boat Race rowers told not to enter Thames due to high levels of E. coli
The ownership of water companies is a red herring. What makes our environment better - our water bodies, our air, our biodiversity - is regulation.
You can have good or bad regulation with the right or wrong penalties or inspection systems in a privatised or a public ownership model.
Look back through the last couple of centuries of British life, and so many of the things that make human existence better than it was are down to regulation. Of workplaces, consumer safety, pollution, food standards, financial services, advertising, holidays… yet regulation still somehow has a bad name.
Regulation only works if its followed.
The problem pre-privatisation is when the regulations were breached, then the nationalised firm would get a fine but nobody would face any consequences and life went on.
Privatisation put teeth on the regulations. Fines mattered.
If you’re wondering what happened to Thames Water this is a good summary.
They borrowed billions and paid it to execs and shareholders.
Now it needs investment they want customers to pay more. If it goes bankrupt taxpayers will pick up the bill.
If it goes bankrupt then shareholders and bondholders should pick up the bill.
Not the taxpayers responsibility at all.
That's a positive for free markets, not a negative, privatise the gains and privatise the losses.
There is no excuse, reason or justification for a bailout.
I'm not sure if you're describing the 'in theory' or 'in practice'?
Both.
In practice firms go bust and their assets are sold and their shareholders and bondholders and other stakeholders lose out without a taxpayer bailout all the bloody time.
I was meaning more at the 'too big to fail' scale. Not "Jim's roofers and plumbers". Just have a horrible suspicion if someone like Thames Water goes to the wall it'll be us that picks up the tab.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
I do and so does everyone I know. They are a thousand times worse.
They are in atrocious state now. Have you actually talked to anyone in the EA?
By the way, do you use trains? I do every week, often multiple times. Another example of a complete shambles at present. No BR wasn’t brilliant but the point is that after 14 years of Conservative Government these utilities should all be soooooooooooooooo much better.
There are no excuses left for them.
They are not 'a thousand times worse'. Far, far from.
What has changed is the amount of monitoring and analysis. The amount of chemical and human sh*t being dumped into our water decades ago was frightening. Which was why so many rivers were ecologically dead.
And the railways are better than pre-privatisation. If you want to look at one area I've not mentioned: timetables.
But in the case of water, I think the improvements have occurred despite privatisation, not because of it. regulation has caused the improvements.
Regulation existed before privatisation. The regulations were being ignored and nothing was done about it pre-privatisation.
Privatisation put a profit motive onto obeying the regulations. It gave accountability.
Regulation + privatisation in combination worked.
I believe there is some truth in that: government regulators have more power over private entities than they do over government-owned ones. It's not always the case, but often is.
Shareholders and bond holders made their choice to invest. They should own the consequences of their choices.
Because they'll nationalise it in a Tory fashion not in a 'how consequences of capitalism should function when it fails ' way
If they nationalise it, they're idiots.
If they bailout the bond holders, they're borderline corrupt.
There is no reason to get involved whatsoever. We have bankruptcy procedures, they should be followed. If nobody else steps in to buy the assets then the state should pick them up for £1 if nobody else offers any more.
Speaking as someone who is in the Thames Water area and would quite like to have continued access to potable water, I'm not sure liquidation is the appropriate way of managing this.
An administrator or liquidator is legally obliged to put getting best value for creditors above continuity of service to customers . That's not appropriate for an essential service. Yes, you can buy water in the shops but it runs out very quickly if there is an interruption to piped water.
I agree that the shareholders and bondholders shouldn't be bailed out, but a standard administrator would be obliged to consider, for example, whether the real estate assets are worth more to creditors than the business as an ongoing concern.
In fact, for this reason, it would appear that standard insolvency law does not apply. Section 26 of the Water Industry Act (1991) seems to specify that normal insolvency practice can't be applied to a company with a water supply and/or sewerage licence. The government seems to be automatically involved.
I suspect the modern type of "boat" used by the Oxford and Cambridge teams is much less likely to sink than previous incarnations - Cambridge famously sank in 1978.
Back in the early 90s when this was also an issue, there was a group in St Ives called "Surfers Against Sewage" who were protesting the main sweage outfall emptying on to one of the town's beaches.
Their Chairman stood for the County Council and comprehensively beat the incumbent Conservative. He thought it was down to local concerns about sewage - the voters I talked to were far more annoyed about Norman Lamont's VAT policy.
Remember Sunak has said several times that his working assumption is GE is in second half of year.
If he now goes for June everyone will say why have you changed your mind, you are in a huge panic.
Won't look good which is why I suspect he won't do it.
So: June - because he has to (putsch straight after locals cataclysm) July / August - because he has to - government collapses before the summer recess on 23rd July
Then we're back to the usual lunacy of why elections in September / October / November / December / January are BAD IDEAS.
I have arrived at an accepted position that Starmer will be PM in 2024, the conservatives will be in opposition with the possibility of a terrible seat total, and I simply cannot get fazed by the date though if it is sooner than November-December then that is fine by me
Terrible accident yesterday in Lossiemouth with 2 teenagers killed riding passenger on an e scooter driven by a 14 year old and involving 4 motor cars
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
I thought one of the water companies' excuses is that we're only discovering the massive amounts of shite in the water because of massively improved monitoring? In that case how is an objective comparison possible?
You can compare water quality from the 1970s and 1980s to today. We have huge improvements in our rivers and beaches between the two eras.
I'm not suggesting the water industry is perfect, far from it. And they should be fined massively for the discharges, because otherwise its pointless, and if the shareholders and bond holders lose money due to fines then tough shit, that's what they get for discharging shit.
Yes, there was a lot that was good about being in the EU.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
I do and so does everyone I know. They are a thousand times worse.
They are in atrocious state now. Have you actually talked to anyone in the EA? Or surfers? (See for example, Surfers Against Sewage)
By the way, do you use trains? I do every week, often multiple times. Another example of a complete shambles at present. No BR wasn’t brilliant but the point is that after 14 years of Conservative Government these utilities should all be soooooooooooooooo much better.
There are no excuses left for them.
They are not. We have only been measuring these kind of incidents for the last few years. Thirty years ago rivers like the Thames were dead zones, hardly and fish etc. Vastly improved now. Yes we have a specific problem, partly related to climate change, partly to poorly built new housing developments and, whisper it quietly, all those tarmacked over drives.
Plus intense agriculture. The Wye is very much poisoned by chicken farms
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
I do and so does everyone I know. They are a thousand times worse.
They are in atrocious state now. Have you actually talked to anyone in the EA? Or surfers? (See for example, Surfers Against Sewage)
By the way, do you use trains? I do every week, often multiple times. Another example of a complete shambles at present. No BR wasn’t brilliant but the point is that after 14 years of Conservative Government these utilities should all be soooooooooooooooo much better.
There are no excuses left for them.
They are not. We have only been measuring these kind of incidents for the last few years. Thirty years ago rivers like the Thames were dead zones, hardly and fish etc. Vastly improved now. Yes we have a specific problem, partly related to climate change, partly to poorly built new housing developments and, whisper it quietly, all those tarmacked over drives.
Plus intense agriculture. The Wye is very much poisoned by chicken farms
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Under nationalised rail, the 1960's Beeching cuts happened, closing 5,000 miles of track, hundreds of branch lines, 2,363 stations and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. Communities never recovered.
Do you accept that railway nationalisation was a disaster?
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
I do and so does everyone I know. They are a thousand times worse.
They are in atrocious state now. Have you actually talked to anyone in the EA? Or surfers? (See for example, Surfers Against Sewage)
By the way, do you use trains? I do every week, often multiple times. Another example of a complete shambles at present. No BR wasn’t brilliant but the point is that after 14 years of Conservative Government these utilities should all be soooooooooooooooo much better.
There are no excuses left for them.
They are not. We have only been measuring these kind of incidents for the last few years. Thirty years ago rivers like the Thames were dead zones, hardly and fish etc. Vastly improved now. Yes we have a specific problem, partly related to climate change, partly to poorly built new housing developments and, whisper it quietly, all those tarmacked over drives.
Plus intense agriculture. The Wye is very much poisoned by chicken farms
Shareholders and bond holders made their choice to invest. They should own the consequences of their choices.
Because they'll nationalise it in a Tory fashion not in a 'how consequences of capitalism should function when it fails ' way
If they nationalise it, they're idiots.
If they bailout the bond holders, they're borderline corrupt.
There is no reason to get involved whatsoever. We have bankruptcy procedures, they should be followed. If nobody else steps in to buy the assets then the state should pick them up for £1 if nobody else offers any more.
Speaking as someone who is in the Thames Water area and would quite like to have continued access to potable water, I'm not sure liquidation is the appropriate way of managing this.
An administrator or liquidator is legally obliged to put getting best value for creditors above continuity of service to customers . That's not appropriate for an essential service. Yes, you can buy water in the shops but it runs out very quickly if there is an interruption to piped water.
I agree that the shareholders and bondholders shouldn't be bailed out, but a standard administrator would be obliged to consider, for example, whether the real estate assets are worth more to creditors than the business as an ongoing concern.
In fact, for this reason, it would appear that standard insolvency law does not apply. Section 26 of the Water Industry Act (1991) seems to specify that normal insolvency practice can't be applied to a company with a water supply and/or sewerage licence. The government seems to be automatically involved.
You just made an argument, then specifically argued against your own argument.
If Thames Water goes bust then the administrators or liquidators will not be legally obliged to put getting best value for creditors above continuity of service, the Water Industry Act precludes that.
There is no reason that administrators or liquidators can't be called in, but with the administrator/liquidator under instructions that continuity of service comes first and the creditors come second.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success, water quality is far, far better and discharges far, far lower than they were pre-privatisation.
Those who are crying because there's any discharges at all need to look at what standards were like pre-privatisation. They were far worse.
What we need though is to let the water firms face the consequences of their choices. Make a bad decision, you lose money, that's your fault, nobody else's. Discharge waste, you get fined, your fault, your consequence.
With a nationalised firm, nobody takes accountability, if discharges happen they happen and neither fines nor losses mean anything to a nationalised firm.
I pretty much & unusually agree with Bart on this one.
The data speaks for itself, and despite the propaganda that is around those nationally owned utilities in the UK have in general performed worse.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
I do and so does everyone I know. They are a thousand times worse.
They are in atrocious state now. Have you actually talked to anyone in the EA? Or surfers? (See for example, Surfers Against Sewage)
By the way, do you use trains? I do every week, often multiple times. Another example of a complete shambles at present. No BR wasn’t brilliant but the point is that after 14 years of Conservative Government these utilities should all be soooooooooooooooo much better.
There are no excuses left for them.
They are not. We have only been measuring these kind of incidents for the last few years. Thirty years ago rivers like the Thames were dead zones, hardly and fish etc. Vastly improved now. Yes we have a specific problem, partly related to climate change, partly to poorly built new housing developments and, whisper it quietly, all those tarmacked over drives.
Plus intense agriculture. The Wye is very much poisoned by chicken farms
Because we all love cheap chicken.
Because we all need to eat.
We do, but there are alternatives to these intensive chicken factories.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
Privatisation has worked. If Thames go bust, then that's the free market working as it should, badly managed firms should go bust.
As that article says, we have only been monitoring properly for a few years, so have no real knowledge of how things were previously. Measurement is the first step to driving change. There is plenty of traction for this now, and not just from insufferable Guardian reading wild-swimmers. Although it’s mostly them.
Boat Race rowers told not to enter Thames due to high levels of E. coli
The ownership of water companies is a red herring. What makes our environment better - our water bodies, our air, our biodiversity - is regulation.
You can have good or bad regulation with the right or wrong penalties or inspection systems in a privatised or a public ownership model.
Look back through the last couple of centuries of British life, and so many of the things that make human existence better than it was are down to regulation. Of workplaces, consumer safety, pollution, food standards, financial services, advertising, holidays… yet regulation still somehow has a bad name.
Regulation only works if its followed.
The problem pre-privatisation is when the regulations were breached, then the nationalised firm would get a fine but nobody would face any consequences and life went on.
Privatisation put teeth on the regulations. Fines mattered.
That should continue going forwards.
That’s a fault of regulation rather than an ownership issue. But on the substance I agree with you, returning water to national ownership would be a waste of time and a distraction. Regulation and the right standards can achieve the same or better results.
There is a lot to be said for supra-national regulations that allow us to compare standards with neighbours (and businesses to trade easily across borders) but that ship has of course sailed.
Monday 13th May - Mrs Brady puts his best smug grin on and goes to Downing Street with a pearl revolver Sunak has three choices - stay and fight, quit, or call the palace. If he calls the palace and they accept, then a couple of days to mop up and we get an election on Thursday 20th - or 27th June.
What if the palace says no?
What if the King is unable to meet the PM.
A Royal funeral could REALLY mess up the timetable
Does anyone know the Twitter handle of Penny Mordaunt's dry cleaner?
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
The government does fine itself, but it means nothing to anyone. If the government makes a loss, or fines itself, then some spreadsheet numbers move but nothing changes.
If a private firm receives a fine, or makes a loss, then it owns the consequences.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility, even for something like water. But there needs to be appropriate regulation too, including most important a firm hand issuing fines for any breaches of standards.
What major innovation is possible with water?
With power, you have generation, and even possibly supply. With telecoms... well, that's obvious. But water? Perrier to our taps?
Quooker in every home…
Not sure about innovation per se, but supply is riddled with leaks. And sewerage is far too often being over whelmed by rainwater run off.
How about incorporating rain water collection and storage to flush toilets? It’s crazy that we use potable water for that.
Rain water collection and storage would surely be a building regulation requirement, not a water company one?
And a much bigger issue is the combination of rainwater and brown water drains - something SuDS in new developments mostly alleviates, but is the devil to retrofit to old developments (basically there are two different drainage systems; one for dirty water from your house, and one for rainwater. The latter requires virtually no treatment before it goes into the watercourses, aside from straining and settlement AIUI. Such separation prevents the heavy rainfall sewage overflows that occur,)
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
I do and so does everyone I know. They are a thousand times worse.
They are in atrocious state now. Have you actually talked to anyone in the EA? Or surfers? (See for example, Surfers Against Sewage)
By the way, do you use trains? I do every week, often multiple times. Another example of a complete shambles at present. No BR wasn’t brilliant but the point is that after 14 years of Conservative Government these utilities should all be soooooooooooooooo much better.
There are no excuses left for them.
They are not. We have only been measuring these kind of incidents for the last few years. Thirty years ago rivers like the Thames were dead zones, hardly and fish etc. Vastly improved now. Yes we have a specific problem, partly related to climate change, partly to poorly built new housing developments and, whisper it quietly, all those tarmacked over drives.
Plus intense agriculture. The Wye is very much poisoned by chicken farms
Because we all love cheap chicken.
Because we all need to eat.
We do, but there are alternatives to these intensive chicken factories.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success, water quality is far, far better and discharges far, far lower than they were pre-privatisation.
Those who are crying because there's any discharges at all need to look at what standards were like pre-privatisation. They were far worse.
What we need though is to let the water firms face the consequences of their choices. Make a bad decision, you lose money, that's your fault, nobody else's. Discharge waste, you get fined, your fault, your consequence.
With a nationalised firm, nobody takes accountability, if discharges happen they happen and neither fines nor losses mean anything to a nationalised firm.
I pretty much & unusually agree with Bart on this one.
The data speaks for itself, and despite the propaganda that is around those nationally owned utilities in the UK have in general performed worse.
(eg Leak performance in Scotland).
Glad we can see eye to eye on this one.
We don't need either extreme, neither of which works well.
Total deregulation doesn't work, if its completely deregulated then no rules are followed. Nationalisation doesn't work, if its nationalised then nobody takes responsibility when regulations are breached.
A firm regulator plus privatised firms gets the best of both worlds. The state sets the rules, then firms either operate within them, or get fined to oblivion when they don't.
An October general election is still the likeliest date
The boats are a big problem for Sunak: it's a mystery to me how so many are still getting over. And the weather has largely been crap.
The French have definitely stepped up patrols and, finally, are experimenting with more aggressive turnback tactics.
I know Vietnam (rather than Albanians) are now fuelling the numbers - the people smugglers are very agile at changing their business model. And they're now adept at surge tactics.
They simply need to stop nearly every one to kill it.
I was only half joking when I referred to wild swimmers being the driving force for a lot of this. I think, if you go back twenty, or even just ten, years there were very few people regularly dipping in local rivers and lakes (outside of that one hot weekend in July, you know the one - the papers use the Phes what a scorcher line, and have fruity girls in skimpy clothing). The fact that many more people have a vested interest in the cleanliness of their rivers is a good thing, but I do think some have blinkers on here regarding the overall state of rivers etc through time. I think the increased sewage discharge is obviously lowering quality, but overall I think things are better than they were say 40 or 30 years ago. Just a lot MORE needs to be done.
I'd be embarrassed if I ever wrote such mixed-up crap as Anushka Asthana's comments.
If there's a confidence vote and Sunak wins, he won't go to the country in June. He might possibly look a bit stronger in parliamentary Tory circles - or at least he might enjoy a few weeks when he doesn't seem as if he's head down in the dustbin which is how he seems now - but he won't look any stronger further afield. No voter will go "Wow, the Tory MPs have confidence in their leader - I won't switch to one of the other parties after all".
If he loses, Mordaunt will go to the country ASAP for obvious reasons.
IMO there will be a VOC and Sunak will lose. It will be like when IDS got the push.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
I thought one of the water companies' excuses is that we're only discovering the massive amounts of shite in the water because of massively improved monitoring? In that case how is an objective comparison possible?
You can compare water quality from the 1970s and 1980s to today. We have huge improvements in our rivers and beaches between the two eras.
I'm not suggesting the water industry is perfect, far from it. And they should be fined massively for the discharges, because otherwise its pointless, and if the shareholders and bond holders lose money due to fines then tough shit, that's what they get for discharging shit.
Yes, there was a lot that was good about being in the EU.
When did things start getting worse again?
The EEC regulations existed in the 1980s, they weren't getting met. Nothing much was being done to meet them.
Simply laying a regulation down means nothing if you have no teeth to enforce it.
Privatisation gave the regulations teeth. Regulations alone failed. Privatisation plus regulations combined cleaned up our waterways.
I was only half joking when I referred to wild swimmers being the driving force for a lot of this. I think, if you go back twenty, or even just ten, years there were very few people regularly dipping in local rivers and lakes (outside of that one hot weekend in July, you know the one - the papers use the Phes what a scorcher line, and have fruity girls in skimpy clothing). The fact that many more people have a vested interest in the cleanliness of their rivers is a good thing, but I do think some have blinkers on here regarding the overall state of rivers etc through time. I think the increased sewage discharge is obviously lowering quality, but overall I think things are better than they were say 40 or 30 years ago. Just a lot MORE needs to be done.
Agreed.
And more can be done with regulations and a private sector. Give the regulator more teeth if need be, increase the fines if need be. Don't flush the baby with the bathwater.
Shareholders and bond holders made their choice to invest. They should own the consequences of their choices.
Because they'll nationalise it in a Tory fashion not in a 'how consequences of capitalism should function when it fails ' way
If they nationalise it, they're idiots.
If they bailout the bond holders, they're borderline corrupt.
There is no reason to get involved whatsoever. We have bankruptcy procedures, they should be followed. If nobody else steps in to buy the assets then the state should pick them up for £1 if nobody else offers any more.
To some extent. It needs to be operated more effectively than administrators typically do because the consequences of not supply water and sewage services to London would be suboptimal
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
I thought one of the water companies' excuses is that we're only discovering the massive amounts of shite in the water because of massively improved monitoring? In that case how is an objective comparison possible?
You can compare water quality from the 1970s and 1980s to today. We have huge improvements in our rivers and beaches between the two eras.
I'm not suggesting the water industry is perfect, far from it. And they should be fined massively for the discharges, because otherwise its pointless, and if the shareholders and bond holders lose money due to fines then tough shit, that's what they get for discharging shit.
Yes, there was a lot that was good about being in the EU.
When did things start getting worse again?
Based on this exposé from 2009, things weren't particularly good pre-Brexit if that's what you're getting at.
It is time to accept that privatisation of utilities and the railways has been an unmitigated disaster.
Depends whether you class telecoms as a utility? That has been a success IMO.
Energy FAIL Rail FAIL Water MASSIVE FAIL Telecoms SUCCESS
...is my scorecard.
I don't have an inherent fervour for nationalisation, so as a blanket policy for anything I'm not in favour. But water and energy? People need to work much harder to persuade me just how good we apparently have it.
Water has been a massive success
Come on BR. Water is a disaster.
Anyway, let’s get back on topic?
Water is the main privatisation that I feel was pointless. What innovation is possible in water supply?
Plenty.
If you discharge you get fined.
If you get fined you lose money.
Therefore there's a profit motive to not discharge, to not get fined.
Innovation.
Water levels improved dramatically post-privatisation. Rivers and beaches when water was nationalised were far, far, worse. This is an objective fact.
The government fines itself all the time. This should happen more.
I agree that pollution was worse in ye olden days, and the current figures might have more to do with measurement than an actual increase. There are also problems with increased building and the need for improved facilities and investment to cope - which is out of the water companies' hands.
But I don't see that these improvements could not have occurred in a nationalised system - indeed, water supply improved massively whilst nationalised. It's complex.
Either way there is plenty of scope for both innovation and accountability with a privatised utility,.
The good thing is that there will be a long exile in the political wilderness for these kinds of views (in this country).
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
So you claim, yet not a single person refutes the basic fact that the waterways are leaps and bounds better than they were pre-privatisation.
I do and so does everyone I know. They are a thousand times worse.
They are in atrocious state now. Have you actually talked to anyone in the EA? Or surfers? (See for example, Surfers Against Sewage)
By the way, do you use trains? I do every week, often multiple times. Another example of a complete shambles at present. No BR wasn’t brilliant but the point is that after 14 years of Conservative Government these utilities should all be soooooooooooooooo much better.
There are no excuses left for them.
You're a fool or a liar if you're claiming water is worse today than it was pre-privatisation. Its objective fact that the waterways are far better today than they were in the 1970s and 1980s.
No I don't use trains, I drive as do most of the country. But rail use has doubled post-privatisation after decades of decline under nationalisation.
So have rail subsidies. And where are the extra passengers? If it just means more commuters into London then it's not as if they have any real choice.
There is no reason that administrators or liquidators can't be called in, but with the administrator/liquidator under instructions that continuity of service comes first and the creditors come second.
I think that's what is supposed to happen, but if none of the other water companies want to take on the obligation (even after the bondholders are wiped out), or if this is precluded for competition reasons, then the government would have to recapitalise Thames Water, or set up a new water company from scratch to take the assets.
Comments
18 June 1970
9 June 1983
11 June 1987
7 June 2001
8 June 2017
Think of it like an inkjet printer. The problem isn't the purchase price as much as the future costs it exposes you to.
So pension funds, foreign and domestic piled in.
Then you have the Treasury and the Foreigners Office arguing strongly against enforcement and tightening regulations.
At the same time you had competition - of a kind. To be the highest returning no-risk investment.
No risk. Yes.
Locals Thursday 2nd May - results clear on Friday 3rd May.
Its a bank holiday weekend - 3 days of absolute political mayhem
Parliament comes back Tuesday 7th May. Rows.
Emergency meeting of the 1922 Committee Thursday 9th May. Rows.
Weekend of even more political chaos.
Monday 13th May - Mrs Brady puts his best smug grin on and goes to Downing Street with a pearl revolver
Sunak has three choices - stay and fight, quit, or call the palace.
If he calls the palace and they accept, then a couple of days to mop up and we get an election on Thursday 20th - or 27th June.
What if the palace says no? Lascelles convention would apply, especially if "can I have a dissolution please" is in response to being told his leadership is untenable...
Improved sewage treatment so that waste isn't discharged. Pre-privatisation, 77% of water was treated to legal standards, today that figure stands at 99%. Fines should continue until that figure reaches 100%
Improved maintenance of the network so there's less leaks.
Improved detection of leaks.
Etc, etc, etc
Basically do a good job and make a profit, do a bad job you lose money.
Most of the rest of the country know the country is a shambles at the moment and we hold utility companies up as examples of the mess.
A Royal funeral could REALLY mess up the timetable
If it goes bankrupt, then you sell the assets for whatever you can get and any stakeholders get burnt down whatever was raised.
If anyone buys the assets for just £1, then the bondholders should share that £1 between them. Realistically the assets will be worth more than £1, and if its not enough to cover the liabilities then that's just too bad for the bondholders.
Whatever happened to him?
Not sure about innovation per se, but supply is riddled with leaks. And sewerage is far too often being over whelmed by rainwater run off.
How about incorporating rain water collection and storage to flush toilets?
It’s crazy that we use potable water for that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-62631320
Edit - or he faces the Vonc which is called very swiftly and wins (fairly easily) then he goes to the Palace
Privatisation has worked. If Thames go bust, then that's the free market working as it should, badly managed firms should go bust.
From a betting POV, if you are going for this market at all, I would suggest money on June. July is really unlikely.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-62631320
Go on, I dare you. 🤦♂️
The focus was female reproductive rights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvzaYf_Q5Rk
If he now goes for June everyone will say why have you changed your mind, you are in a huge panic.
Won't look good which is why I suspect he won't do it.
People love predicting early GEs - goodness knows how many times they have been predicted on here over the years - they almost never happen - only exception is Theresa May in 2017.
They are in atrocious state now. Have you actually talked to anyone in the EA? Or surfers? (See for example, Surfers Against Sewage)
By the way, do you use trains? I do every week, often multiple times. Another example of a complete shambles at present. No BR wasn’t brilliant but the point is that after 14 years of Conservative Government these utilities should all be soooooooooooooooo much better.
There are no excuses left for them.
Measurement is the first step to driving change. There is plenty of traction for this now, and not just from insufferable Guardian reading wild-swimmers. Although it’s mostly them.
77% was pre-privatisation.
So discharges were at least 2200% worse pre-privatisation.
Boat Race rowers told not to enter Thames due to high levels of E. coli
Will he do it? I doubt it. I think Rishi is basically a ditherer. So my guess is he will finally call it in the autumn, if he can survive the probable post May 2nd fallout.
That was certainly the case in 1983, 1987, and 2017.
2001 was down to the foot and mouth outbreak which necessitated a delay as parts of the country were still struggling with the outbreak.
1970 is perhaps the most illuminating - Labour did pretty well in the local elections recovering a lot of the ground lost in the 1968 disaster. The Liberals did very badly which was a precursor of their poor result in the following month's election. Labour thought the local elections proved they could regain power but it didn't - Heath and the Conservatives won a majority of 30.
1970 and 2017 are the two examples of a governing party having a decent set of local results but going backwards in the resulting GE campaign.
1983 and 1987 are possibly atypcial given the dominance of Thatcher and the Conservatives.
2001 is unique given the circumstances.
I don't see the argument for June at all.
No I don't use trains, I drive as do most of the country. But rail use has doubled post-privatisation after decades of decline under nationalisation.
What has changed is the amount of monitoring and analysis. The amount of chemical and human sh*t being dumped into our water decades ago was frightening. Which was why so many rivers were ecologically dead.
And the railways are better than pre-privatisation. If you want to look at one area I've not mentioned: timetables.
But in the case of water, I think the improvements have occurred despite privatisation, not because of it. regulation has caused the improvements.
June - because he has to (putsch straight after locals cataclysm)
July / August - because he has to - government collapses before the summer recess on 23rd July
Then we're back to the usual lunacy of why elections in September / October / November / December / January are BAD IDEAS.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68674088
Yes we have a specific problem, partly related to climate change, partly to poorly built new housing developments and, whisper it quietly, all those tarmacked over drives.
Privatisation put a profit motive onto obeying the regulations. It gave accountability.
Regulation + privatisation in combination worked.
You're not getting this, are you? So dense light is bending around you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1287440.stm
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969722041110
A power purchasing agreement absolutely functions as a subsidy - what else do you call forcing a commercial entity into an agreement to buy power from a particular supplier for an extended period?
This 2018 piece is a good (and not biased against renewables) source dealing with the whole industry not just solar:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/what-does-subsidy-free-renewables-actually-mean/
Yet “subsidy-free” is a nebulous phrase that means different things to different people. In fact, many of the “subsidy-free” schemes announced over the past 12 months would not meet the purest interpretations of the term.
The problem with the "privatisation has made the water better" argument is that you can't measure the counterfactual of what would have happened if it had stayed in public hands.
The water companies have been rumbled and no amount of bleating about NIMBYism or increased monitoring is gonna save them.
It’s too wearisome to explain to a fanatic. And because it doesn’t matter for now, because the zeal for excessive privatisation won’t return to the centre ground for another decade or more, it’s a waste of time refuting it in detail.
In practice firms go bust and their assets are sold and their shareholders and bondholders and other stakeholders lose out without a taxpayer bailout all the bloody time.
You can have good or bad regulation with the right or wrong penalties or inspection systems in a privatised or a public ownership model.
Look back through the last couple of centuries of British life, and so many of the things that make human existence better than it was are down to regulation. Of workplaces, consumer safety, pollution, food standards, financial services, advertising, holidays… yet regulation still somehow has a bad name.
If they're badly managed they should go bust. They should be liquidated (no pun intended) and their assets sold to a new firm at pennies on the pound, the liabilities resolved by whatever revenue is raised and the rest written off by those who made bad investments, and the new firm should either do a good job and make a profit, or a bad job and face the same fate as its predecessor.
And I'm arguing this from a *water* privatisation was pointless perspective...
The problem pre-privatisation is when the regulations were breached, then the nationalised firm would get a fine but nobody would face any consequences and life went on.
Privatisation put teeth on the regulations. Fines mattered.
That should continue going forwards.
For one thing, people feel pain in their pockets.
An administrator or liquidator is legally obliged to put getting best value for creditors above continuity of service to customers . That's not appropriate for an essential service. Yes, you can buy water in the shops but it runs out very quickly if there is an interruption to piped water.
I agree that the shareholders and bondholders shouldn't be bailed out, but a standard administrator would be obliged to consider, for example, whether the real estate assets are worth more to creditors than the business as an ongoing concern.
In fact, for this reason, it would appear that standard insolvency law does not apply. Section 26 of the Water Industry Act (1991) seems to specify that normal insolvency practice can't be applied to a company with a water supply and/or sewerage licence. The government seems to be automatically involved.
Back in the early 90s when this was also an issue, there was a group in St Ives called "Surfers Against Sewage" who were protesting the main sweage outfall emptying on to one of the town's beaches.
Their Chairman stood for the County Council and comprehensively beat the incumbent Conservative. He thought it was down to local concerns about sewage - the voters I talked to were far more annoyed about Norman Lamont's VAT policy.
Terrible accident yesterday in Lossiemouth with 2 teenagers killed riding passenger on an e scooter driven by a 14 year old and involving 4 motor cars
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/moray/6413467/boys-deaths-a941-ebike-crash-lossiemouth/
When did things start getting worse again?
Do you accept that railway nationalisation was a disaster?
If Thames Water goes bust then the administrators or liquidators will not be legally obliged to put getting best value for creditors above continuity of service, the Water Industry Act precludes that.
There is no reason that administrators or liquidators can't be called in, but with the administrator/liquidator under instructions that continuity of service comes first and the creditors come second.
The data speaks for itself, and despite the propaganda that is around those nationally owned utilities in the UK have in general performed worse.
(eg Leak performance in Scotland).
There might well be a confidence vote post May election, but Sunak will win it.
I expect the Government to then go into full campaign mode - that will be based on turning out the Tory base, and not winning over floaters.
There is a lot to be said for supra-national regulations that allow us to compare standards with neighbours (and businesses to trade easily across borders) but that ship has of course sailed.
And a much bigger issue is the combination of rainwater and brown water drains - something SuDS in new developments mostly alleviates, but is the devil to retrofit to old developments (basically there are two different drainage systems; one for dirty water from your house, and one for rainwater. The latter requires virtually no treatment before it goes into the watercourses, aside from straining and settlement AIUI. Such separation prevents the heavy rainfall sewage overflows that occur,)
We don't need either extreme, neither of which works well.
Total deregulation doesn't work, if its completely deregulated then no rules are followed.
Nationalisation doesn't work, if its nationalised then nobody takes responsibility when regulations are breached.
A firm regulator plus privatised firms gets the best of both worlds. The state sets the rules, then firms either operate within them, or get fined to oblivion when they don't.
The French have definitely stepped up patrols and, finally, are experimenting with more aggressive turnback tactics.
I know Vietnam (rather than Albanians) are now fuelling the numbers - the people smugglers are very agile at changing their business model. And they're now adept at surge tactics.
They simply need to stop nearly every one to kill it.
Just do a debt for equity swap and wipe out the current owners
The fact that many more people have a vested interest in the cleanliness of their rivers is a good thing, but I do think some have blinkers on here regarding the overall state of rivers etc through time. I think the increased sewage discharge is obviously lowering quality, but overall I think things are better than they were say 40 or 30 years ago.
Just a lot MORE needs to be done.
Stop taking the piss.
If there's a confidence vote and Sunak wins, he won't go to the country in June. He might possibly look a bit stronger in parliamentary Tory circles - or at least he might enjoy a few weeks when he doesn't seem as if he's head down in the dustbin which is how he seems now - but he won't look any stronger further afield. No voter will go "Wow, the Tory MPs have confidence in their leader - I won't switch to one of the other parties after all".
If he loses, Mordaunt will go to the country ASAP for obvious reasons.
IMO there will be a VOC and Sunak will lose. It will be like when IDS got the push.
Simply laying a regulation down means nothing if you have no teeth to enforce it.
Privatisation gave the regulations teeth. Regulations alone failed. Privatisation plus regulations combined cleaned up our waterways.
And more can be done with regulations and a private sector. Give the regulator more teeth if need be, increase the fines if need be. Don't flush the baby with the bathwater.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVn731Uwcyo
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/27/environmental-groups-urge-regulator-to-act-over-record-sewage-discharge