Hermit Road
10:38 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264185715-10-en.pdf?expires=1687980882&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=9EDF78471BCA82C20BEB4E548EEF2767
Household water in London is half the price of than in Germany and favourable to most European cities.
Another win for Thatch.
Food here is 7% lower than the EU.
Employment is much higher.
Our kids leave school and employers are fighting over them. In Europe, this definitely is not the case.
Stop moaning and thank your lucky stars you live in a country that has these benefits. Or move and pay more for your water while you’re struggling to find work
|
Darlo Debs
8:34 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
Exeter yes... you'd think.
|
RM10
6:47 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
Maggie has messed up our country good and proper.
|
Mike Oxsaw
6:17 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
RM10 2:09 Sat Jul 1
Sure it's not beyond any government (red or blue) to set up a few dozen transparent shell companies with the explicit purpose of buying shares in the privatises industries when they become affordable.
Then simply follow city (not Man City) rules over making a take-over bid when their shareholdings get large enough.
Not an instant solution, but 10-20 years (halfway to the next Brexit referendum) should do.
There will also be a point where they can start directing the way the company operates (well) before full take-over and so help keep them in profit for the tax payer.
|
WHU(Exeter)
5:48 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
Debs, that was over 2000 years ago.
You’d like to think that all this time later civilised countries would be efficient and highly capable at getting rid of their own shit.
|
RM10
2:09 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
Can only renationalise if they fail.
|
Mike Oxsaw
2:07 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
Darlo Debs 1:06 Sat Jul 1
No reason the next (Labour) government can't renationalise every single privatised organisation Thatcher & Co disposed of.
Simply borrow the money to do so and load the debt repayments on one or two generations further down the line than those that will currently have to pick up the tab for government spending over the last 30 years - particularly the last 2 or 3.
|
RM10
2:07 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
Believe me the regulators are part of the problem, offwat and dwi are also not run very well.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
2:03 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
Darlo Debs 1:47 Sat Jul 1
The regulators and the government are essentially the same thing. The government (all governments) have allowed its regulators to be in cahoots with the water companies for 34 years. It's no different with the power companies.
In my opinion, the rail regulators haven't been quite so bad, but with rail their task is easier since there is some degree of genuine competition between various companies.
|
Mike Oxsaw
1:58 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
northbankboy68 9:59 Fri Jun 30
As someone who clearly creams their pants at the very though of "Freedom of Movement", why don't you move to one of the nation states you have obviously researched where things are "Much better"?
Far better use of the limited time you have on this planet than whinging endlessly on an insignificant web site.
|
RM10
1:50 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
Sewage overflow has always been there, because there are nosey busy bodies with no jobs Ferkel sharkey being one, flash flooding and concrete floors don’t help, very rare we suffer from water supply failure or Water quality. Lead times for replacing pumps is 3-6 months, manufacturing issues, they don’t last as long as our old pumps, and massive energy costs again outside issues.
|
Darlo Debs
1:47 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
We're the regulators given the adequate powers?
If yes, then you have a point I'd entirely agree with..if no then it's still.a government shortcoming.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
1:33 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
Darlo Debs 1:06 Sat Jul 1
' do.you seriously think.the numbers are big enough to.allow any excuse for the failure of privatisation.'
They are certainly big enough to be an excuse. It's one that has been broadly accepted by the regulators. However, whatever the numbers, in my opinion, they are not justification for overflowing sewers and failure of water supply.
The fault lies equally with the water companies and the piss-weak regulators. The water companies seem unwilling to accept one of the basic precepts of capitalism, in that circumstances may unexpectedly change in a way that might adversely impact upon projected profits, and the regulators seem entirely unwilling to make the water companies face that fact.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
1:26 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
overbyyer 12:50 Sat Jul 1
'Those ONS statistics only relates to birth rates, so whilst the birth rate might be diminishing, you have failed to include the offset from the increase in average life expectancy for men and women since 1989, which will further reduce your assumed 10 million immigrant make up.'
The increase in life expectancy between 1989 and 2023 is 5 years. Most of that won't have happened yet ('expectancy') and much of it (18%) will be enjoyed by those 10m immigrants in any case. It doesn't put a dent in the figures. But nice try.
'Cheerio now
Yes, probably best, it's not looking good for you, you old racist.
|
Darlo Debs
1:08 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
* tender
|
Darlo Debs
1:06 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
...mass immigration and illegal
Immigration aren't really the same things we can't know the exact number of illegal.migration but do.you seriously think.the numbers are big enough to.allow any excuse for the failure of privatisation.
Thing is because so many privatised utilities and rail have failed us in various ways, the push for renationalisation is actually a vote winner. Your party's political.ideoligy has lost the argument on this.
Sadly though a general.actual
push to renationalise cannot happen in.the current financial.climate. Though its certain that as rail franchises come up for renewal.the plan us to take them.back.and not render them.out again.
.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
12:57 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
overbyyer 12:12 Sat Jul 1
'Now Eight regarding your semantics around your now obvious dislike for immigration'
I don't know why you keep calling me Eight. He can't fucking stand me.
And, yes, I do object to the uncontrolled immigration of 10m people (an 18% increase in population) in about 30 years that, in part, leads to our sewers and other infrastructure being unable to cope. Only a fucking idiot would think this isn't a problem.
And, just to re-iterate, it wasn't me who implied that children born in the UK to immigrants aren't 'indigenous'. Only one racist here.
And Debs, you do understand that population stabilisation by means of increased birth-rate isn't the same as mass (sometimes uncontrolled, often illegal) immigration, right?
And Goose, yes, the water and power companies have got away with murder under the regulatory regimes of all governments.
|
overbyyer
12:50 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
Ah, one final point re population Eight.
Those ONS statistics only relates to birth rates, so whilst the birth rate might be diminishing, you have failed to include the offset from the increase in average life expectancy for men and women since 1989, which will further reduce your assumed 10 million immigrant make up.
Cheerio now
|
Darlo Debs
12:23 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
WHU(Exeter)
Didn't the Romans .put lead in.their plumbing which made people a bit gaga. Obviously some are already way ahead of the curve on that.one
Any attempt to.claim.privatisation.of these utilities and rail.is a good idea and that it's failed because of increased immigration should remember that we were told privatisation would bring in the funds needed to modernise tbe infrastructure. Where is the evidence that has happened with or without immigration? It was asset stripped as RM10 has already explained. Now they want to.increase bills again to cover those investment costs.The tax payer is being royally shafted once again.
Also Overbyer is right on his comments re population growth. Tories at the Nat C conference even admitted as much. We need more women to be having babies. Only problem.with that is that it's be more likely women lower down the socio-economic scale that would oblige. Ypu know? The ones always being looked down on by the right wing press for having kids they can't t afford..Unless much more money was made available for childcare etc so middle class women could carry on working in.their better paid jobs.
No cheap solutions here.
|
overbyyer
12:12 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero wrote...
Re: Thames Water
overbuyer
The 2.1 ratio has been accepted since time immemorial.
For the purpose of this calculation, what other period would be relevant to the period 1989 to now other than, um, 1989 to now?
Children born here are British. Why would you attempt to divide them into 'indigenous' or 'immigrant'? If I'd used the 'indigenous' word, you'd be wetting yourself and screaming 'Waycist' at the top of your voice.
And here's the source:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2021
Thank you for providing the source, I stand corrected.
Now Eight regarding your semantics around your now obvious dislike for immigration and your now blatant Tory bile.
That's out in the open, as is your multiple logins.
Are you bringing Nurse out to play today as well, or is she too busy playing the martyred single mum?
I'm off away for the weekend, so tata for now
|
goose
12:00 Sat Jul 1
Re: Thames Water
|
Surface is right about birth rates and population growth etc.
It’s all on the ONS, not exactly difficult to fact check.
I also think it’s blindingly obvious that population growth through immigration would need an investment in infrastructure.
|
| 
