News1 min ago
The Perils Of Privatisation
The infrastructure built with the people's money is now being neglected by the rich private companies.
https:/
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I too concur that water supply should never have been privatised. I actually go a little further than that and suggest that domestic water supply should be financed from general taxation.
However, that is largely beside the point because there is no evidence that maintenance (or lack of it) would have been significantly different had the utility remained publicly owned. In fact, many utilities which were privatised now enjoy considerably better service than when they were publicly owned. Does anyone recall trying to have a telephone installed before 1984? You would have to wait months and then perhaps only be provided with a "party" line which you had to share with a neighbour. The fact is that these utilities were just as short of money as the water companies find themselves now.
As far as this location goes, here's an extract from the report:
"The firm said the burst had been located on a pipe between Darwell Reservoir and water supply works which feed into Hastings.
Because of its "difficult" location, director Tim McMahon said the company had to fell 50 trees in order to get to the burst."
Do you honestly believe that this supply pipe would have been maintained any differently (i.e. not ignored until it broke) if it had been under the control of a public supplier? Or is it just the principle that shareholders have made a few quid from it that troubles you?
Does anyone recall trying to have a telephone installed before 1984? You would have to wait months and then perhaps only be provided with a "party" line which you had to share with a neighbour.
six weeks for a line - I do remember
as a student, I was in Canadee and asked to wait in for Ma Bell. The engineer said telephones were put in that week - usually the day after ordering.
Back in jolly old blighty - I moved to Brum and was (2nd) on call, so I asked my work supervisor to certify that I needed a priority service. And she said " no we dont do things like that" so I was told instead I wd have to be resident ( simples). At 10 pm ( those were the days!) I asked switch where the 2nd on call room was - oh there isnt one and never has been.
Chaos, just after the winter of discontent 1979. No one ran anything ( see post office inquiry today)
"We need to economise our water usage"
Of course we don't. Across the UK more than 400 billion litres of water falls from the sky on average every day. The total daily UK water consumption (domestic, commercial and industrial) is about 14bn litres. So it only needs the water providers to capture, store and process considerably less than 5% of rainfall to more than meet demand.
The problems are:
- They refuse to increase capacity.
- About a third of what they do manage to distribute is lost through leaks in their networks.
- They refuse to invest in networks to move water from where there is an excess to where there is a deficiency.
The last new reservoir in England was completed more than 30 years ago. In that time the population has risen by more than 10 million, roughly 20%. As well as that the UK is indented with large estuaries and nowhere is further than 70 miles from the sea. But the idea of desalination plants to be used in times of low rainfall is also ruled out. There's one in East London which was completed in 2008 and it was expected to run for 40% of the time during its operational life. Apart from a few brief periods for testing, it's never been used.
Because they refuse to make the necessary investments to increase capacity the water providers like to promote the fallacy that “water is a scarce resource.” In the UK it’s nothing of the sort. The country is awash with the stuff. Countries with far lower rainfall than the UK manage perfectly well to provide adequate supplies. Instead UK water providers, aided and abetted by successive governments, prefer to peddle claptrap.
PP - we know the post office enquiry is ongoing. It isn't necessary the mention it on every thread!
yes it is ! It is like the trial of Oscar WIlde - once in a century. Jarnail Singh ( senior lawyer) getting a real goin over by some er other lawyers. -
and the er recurring theme is - lying, keeping back evidence, perjury, the innocent going to prison and a cover up with shredding- that is more than a days work !
The simple fact of the matter is that people like canary don't like other people making money.
weeeelllll even I cringed when Lord Mone ( Lady mone's hubby: yes I know) said of his trade of substandard PPE - with £60m profit for him and no benefit for the NHS
"that is what people do" - and I involu tarily exclaimed ( = said) " and shouldnt !"
//Because they refuse to make the necessary investments to increase capacity the water providers like to promote the fallacy that “water is a scarce resource.”//
So, if nationalised, how much do you think taxes should be increased to solve the problem of under-investment & upgrade the infrastructure to provide everyone with as much water as they choose to use free at the point of delivery?
Could it be another HS2?
"So, if nationalised, how much do you think taxes should be increased to solve the problem of under-investment & upgrade the infrastructure to provide everyone with as much water as they choose to use free at the point of delivery?"
Well dave, when water supply was in public ownership it seemed to manage quite well with supplying domestic users with unmetered water. Few people had water meters pre-privatisation.
I'm now on metered water but when I was on a flat rate (up to about three years ago) it cost me around £220pa. Let's be generous and say that would now be £300. There are 25m households in the UK. So that makes the revenue that would be earned under the old system around £7.5bn.
There would be no need for any taxes to increase to accommodate that spend and more besides for replacement infrastructure. The government wastes enormous sums of money every year, borrowing much of it to give away in Overseas Aid (£13bn last year, some of ironically used to provide water supplies in "developing" nations). If that isn't enough, simply accommodating new arrivals claiming to seek asylum costs more than £8m a day (£3bn pa). There is enormous waste in the NHS, in the Civil Service and many other government funded functions. Providing fresh water for people in this country could and should be prioritised over all of that spend. If you wanted to do a poll among the population to see where they's prefer their cash to be spent you could begin by asking the people of Hastings and St.Leonards:
as I so wisely said above
Thames water ...... (an asset stripper) who ran the business into the ground and borrowed money to pay a divident
Stiglitz ( Times yesterday) [cries of "hooda stig den? who he?"]: "Thames water is a classic example of 'fake capitalism' where irresponsible owners take out the money and leave society to pick up the pieces"
The difference between us ( Dur stig n me that is!)
He has a Nobel Prize and I am stuck on AB
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
News2 mins ago
High Street Sales Slumpm Government...
News2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Only The A F D Can Save Germany
News4 mins ago