Feargal Sharkey Tests River Don, which fails series of environmental tests

[Delbow]

2 hours ago, Tony said:

 

It's not as straightforward as you think. Outflows from modern plants are certainly doable but (for example) where a combined sewage / rainwater system fills up in a storm it overflows into the local river and no amount of hoping will stop it because the 150 year old drains are designed to do exactly that. They need replacing, or underground storage tanks installing, or the sky turning off.

 

Of course progress should be made but it's not as easy, cheap or fast as just wishing it to be. It's a technical and money issue, not a political or market forces issue. It's both VERY technical and VERY expensive. 

 

But surely even some of the most pro-market people can see that there's a clear choice between: 

 

1. Water companies spending the money that could be used to upgrade the infrastructure on shareholder dividends instead, and then demanding that consumers cough up the extra money for upgrading infrastructure (the current position) 

 

2. Reinvesting all the income from water bills into upgrading infrastructure (only possible via a non-profit model, such as state-run water companies)

[Prettytom]

14 minutes ago, Delbow said:

 

But surely even some of the most pro-market people can see that there's a clear choice between: 

 

1. Water companies spending the money that could be used to upgrade the infrastructure on shareholder dividends instead, and then demanding that consumers cough up the extra money for upgrading infrastructure (the current position) 

 

2. Reinvesting all the income from water bills into upgrading infrastructure (only possible via a non-profit model, such as state-run water companies)

Additionally, taking action to at least partially turn off the sky would be a good idea.

[Tony]

25 minutes ago, Delbow said:

 

But surely even some of the most pro-market people can see that there's a clear choice between: 

 

1. Water companies spending the money that could be used to upgrade the infrastructure on shareholder dividends instead, and then demanding that consumers cough up the extra money for upgrading infrastructure (the current position) 

 

2. Reinvesting all the income from water bills into upgrading infrastructure (only possible via a non-profit model, such as state-run water companies)

 

It's a seductive idea. But before we get bogged down in it, first, do you have confidence in a government of any persuasion to provide water services with more efficiency or at a lower cost than the WaterCo's? 

 

On a side note, there is no "market" for water services. There are a series of state regulated monopolies working to state controlled price restrictions. 

[Baron99]

40 minutes ago, Delbow said:

 

But surely even some of the most pro-market people can see that there's a clear choice between: 

 

1. Water companies spending the money that could be used to upgrade the infrastructure on shareholder dividends instead, and then demanding that consumers cough up the extra money for upgrading infrastructure (the current position) 

 

2. Reinvesting all the income from water bills into upgrading infrastructure (only possible via a non-profit model, such as state-run water companies)

On average water companies want to increase annual bill by 40% by 2030.  Southern Water want an 84% increase. 

[Delbow]

19 hours ago, Tony said:

 

It's a seductive idea. But before we get bogged down in it, first, do you have confidence in a government of any persuasion to provide water services with more efficiency or at a lower cost than the WaterCo's?

 

Of course I do, because it's the default way that water utilities are managed throughout the world.

 

Your 'it's a seductive idea' comment is classic capitalist-realist BS. In fact, it's 100% Humphrey Appleby - Jim Hacker proposes doing something differently that is for the common good, Humphrey goes pale, "No, no, no, minister!" and throws a load of spurious objections in the way. "It's so difficult, minister, so complicated ". Is it chuff.

[Tony]

22 minutes ago, Delbow said:

 

Of course I do, because it's the default way that water utilities are managed throughout the world.

 

Your 'it's a seductive idea' comment is classic capitalist-realist BS. In fact, it's 100% Humphrey Appleby - Jim Hacker proposes doing something differently that is for the common good, Humphrey goes pale, "No, no, no, minister!" and throws a load of spurious objections in the way. "It's so difficult, minister, so complicated ". Is it chuff.

 

Can you provide an example of how it would work in the UK? Just one example of a well functioning and cost efficient UK Government department might be enough. 

[Delbow]

1 hour ago, Tony said:

 

Can you provide an example of how it would work in the UK? Just one example of a well functioning and cost efficient UK Government department might be enough. 

 

Yes - although the British are culturally inferior to many nations, I think it's within our ability to run a public water system. We managed it before, if you remember. On your second point, the probation service had to be renationalised, by a conservative government, because the private sector was so hopeless. 

[Tony]

25 minutes ago, Delbow said:

 

Yes - although the British are culturally inferior to many nations, I think it's within our ability to run a public water system. We managed it before, if you remember. On your second point, the probation service had to be renationalised, by a conservative government, because the private sector was so hopeless. 

We'll skip over the "culturally inferior" point as the risible argument bait that it is. Start a new thread on it, see how far you get with the idea.  

 

 

On your point on the Probation Service being an example of a "well functioning and cost efficient UK Government department" is it this Probation Service you were thinking of, or another one? 👇🏻👇🏻 👇🏻👇🏻

 

Quote

 

Every probation service in the UK is failing to meet minimum standards as the service buckles under the weight of record staff shortages and huge caseloads, an investigation has revealed.

Staff describe dealing with unsafe numbers of cases and a “s**t show” system “in meltdown” even before this month’s early release of thousands of prisoners to alleviate a jails crisis.

Some probation services are operating with less than half the number of required staff, prompting grave internal doubts about their ability to cope with the increased demand, the investigation by CSW's sister magazine The House has found.

 

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/in-depth/article/probation-service-is-in-meltdown-according-to-staff

[Delbow]

8 minutes ago, Tony said:

We'll skip over the "culturally inferior" point as the risible argument bait that it is. Start a new thread on it, see how far you get with the idea.  

 

 

On your point on the Probation Service being an example of a "well functioning and cost efficient UK Government department" is it this Probation Service you were thinking of, or another one? 👇🏻👇🏻 👇🏻👇🏻

 

https://www.civilserviceworld.com/in-depth/article/probation-service-is-in-meltdown-according-to-staff

 

Yes, and it's still better than the private sector. You carry on defending the indefensible though - accruing huge debt while paying all profits to shareholders and neglecting the infrastructure - because anything else is impossible and 'seductive'.

[Tony]

@Delbow I'm not defending anything, especially a series of state regulated monopolies. They are an absolute  shower and I would let them go bust just like I would have let the banks go bust in 2008.

 

I'm not at all ideological in terms of state vs private ownership, I am evidence based. Show me the hard evidence that the state can do it better and I will agree. 

 

 

So what I am asking you is to provide some, any, evidence that the UK state is capable of running the WaterCo's more efficiently and at lower cost and so far you've not been able to. There are so many people calling for a state takeover that I would expect this evidence to be overwhelming, but it seems not. Where is it?