Work so hard you cripple yourself

[Fergie 307]

Though worth noting Dŵr Cymru is a not for profit and things there are not exactly going swimmingly (sorry). Problem is water services have many challenges that are not overcome by state ownership; building new reservoirs is hard - not the actual building, but getting the planning permission in the area that need the water (cf. Abingdon reservoir). Expanding sewage systems to cope just with increased peak rainfalls let alone the changing habits of the population, the growing population, the ageing population is also hard; again not the actual building part but nobody, absolutely nobody wants road closures while sewers are upgraded, while as for finding a location for new sewage treatment works...

For me the issue is there is clearly enormous investment required to upgrade the infrastructure. It ought to be possible to crack on with this a bit better if centrally funded, and the buck would stop in one place.
Would it necessarily be run super efficiently, probably not. But it is too important an issue to have the current lottery where the service is dependent on who your provider is, and a great deal of money is going into the pockets of shareholders, which could and should be paying for new pipes, reservoirs or whatever.

 

[Chris Puttick]

There's been enormous amounts of investment, it's just hard to keep up. In recent years there's been some big spend on much overdue interconnects, but for decades there's been spend on e.g. leakage reduction, which is at it's lowest level ever, despite flows being well up. There's certainly been a fail in regulation e.g. allowing the financial structures adopted by Thames Water in the 2000s but overall things are genuinely better than they were - but that makes for poor headlines and even worse political messaging.

 

[Chris152]

There's been enormous amounts of investment, it's just hard to keep up. In recent years there's been some big spend on much overdue interconnects, but for decades there's been spend on e.g. leakage reduction, which is at it's lowest level ever, despite flows being well up. There's certainly been a fail in regulation e.g. allowing the financial structures adopted by Thames Water in the 2000s but overall things are genuinely better than they were - but that makes for poor headlines and even worse political messaging.

Are you suggesting the water companies are doing a decent job?

 

[Chris Puttick]

Are you suggesting the water companies are doing a decent job?

I'm not suggesting that the water companies are doing a decent job. The numbers are. E.g. "Overall, the water sector in England and Wales has been improving – leakage is now at its lowest level ever" "Leakage in England and Wales is at its lowest ever level since privatisation, is lower than in many other European countries, and is significantly lower than in either Scotland or Northern Ireland."

(from https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/leakage-in-the-water-industry/#leakage5)

 

[Chris152]

I'm not suggesting that the water companies are doing a decent job. The numbers are. E.g. "Overall, the water sector in England and Wales has been improving – leakage is now at its lowest level ever" "Leakage in England and Wales is at its lowest ever level since privatisation, is lower than in many other European countries, and is significantly lower than in either Scotland or Northern Ireland."

(from https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/leakage-in-the-water-industry/#leakage5)

Fair enough, leakage is better than it was.

My personal concern relates to sewage - before we go estuary fishing, or get into the sea, we have to check for recent storm drain overflows, which are shockingly common. And of course, rivers are dying on account of pollution (of various sorts) anyway. Hideous. I'd imagine the only way the infrastructure can be properly sorted is if it's owned publicly, so solutions can be forced through - failure to do so is a disaster, I think.

 

[Chris Puttick]

Fair enough, leakage is better than it was.

My personal concern relates to sewage - before we go estuary fishing, or get into the sea, we have to check for recent storm drain overflows, which are shockingly common. And of course, rivers are dying on account of pollution (of various sorts) anyway. Hideous. I'd imagine the only way the infrastructure can be properly sorted is if it's owned publicly, so solutions can be forced through - failure to do so is a disaster, I think.

Solutions involving new or extensions to sewage treatment works can be forced through the planning system regardless of ownership of the water companies; similarly digging up the roads to install additional pipes to handle rainwater separately from sewage isn't a water company ownership question.

 

[Chris152]

Solutions involving new or extensions to sewage treatment works can be forced through the planning system regardless of ownership of the water companies; similarly digging up the roads to install additional pipes to handle rainwater separately from sewage isn't a water company ownership question.

No, but the will to do so seems to be lacking the way things are. And we do pay the water companies to handle rainwater. We have some influence over government through the ballot box but it seems very little over private companies.

 

[Diver Fred]

Fair enough, leakage is better than it was.

My personal concern relates to sewage - before we go estuary fishing, or get into the sea, we have to check for recent storm drain overflows, which are shockingly common. And of course, rivers are dying on account of pollution (of various sorts) anyway. Hideous. I'd imagine the only way the infrastructure can be properly sorted is if it's owned publicly, so solutions can be forced through - failure to do so is a disaster, I think.

Such infrastructure needs to be completed as part of the development of more housing (estates). This rush to build evermore houses never ever includes the thinking about water, waste disposal, doctors, schools, etc...

Me - family planning needs to be part of that as well - the population of this country since WW2 has gone up by 50% - I'd say that is completely unsustainable!

 

[Chris Puttick]

No, but the will to do so seems to be lacking the way things are. And we do pay the water companies to handle rainwater. We have some influence over government through the ballot box but it seems very little over private companies.

It's not the private companies cf. Abingdon reservoir. It's that people don't want reservoirs or sewage works near them, or existing sewage works near them growing by 50%. Similarly (particularly working) people don't want their daily journeys made 20 minutes longer for months on end while roads are dug up (except where the end result is going to be reduced daily journey times).

 

[Jacob]

...... It employs a lot less people, .....alongside massively increased employment. .....

Some contradiction here?

 

[MikeJhn]

Why would they do that? Union fights were more often about keeping jobs and preventing run-down and closure.

It certainly helps if you want to know things. Interesting how the right are so sceptical about information sources and prefer their made up fantasies!

Union fights were always about money despite company loss's, if a business is no longer profitable it has to close or redundancies made no matter what the unions say and nearly always they had one thing to say "Strike" and that really helped.

 

[artie]

Me - family planning needs to be part of that as well - the population of this country since WW2 has gone up by 50% - I'd say that is completely unsustainable!

How much of the population increase is down to reproduction v immigration?

 

[Amplidyne]

I don't understand. Not just yourself. But when people say stuff like "moved back", I don't understand on what basis that they claim this. It's only been around 3 months. Nothing really has settled yet. We have 5 years.
And normally the people that claim negative outcomes (which have yet to become any kind of outcome) they are part of the 99.99%, not a part of the 0.01%.
Which begs a question - which means I doubly don't understand.

Inheritance tax destroying generational farming, VAT on private schools, NI rises on business, minimum wage levels making it mroe expensive for small businesses to run.

All hardly progressive.

Like you say, we have a possible five years of this yet. I wonder what's to come.

And that's before the wage rises for their union mates.

I'm (not) looking forward to seeing this wonderful new Britain they're going to deliver.

 

[Amplidyne]

Why would they do that? Union fights were more often about keeping jobs and preventing run-down and closure.

You keep on believing that if you want to. They fought whether the jobs were needed or not. More often it was about money, or in support of others. Fat lot of good that did.

It certainly helps if you want to know things. Interesting how the right are so sceptical about information sources and prefer their made up fantasies!

It certainly does help, but it doesn't help just quoting views that are opinions that agree with your own.

Everyone has an opinion. The truth is always somewhere between the two opposing views, and is rarely "It's all the fault of" IMHO at least.

 

[Chris Puttick]

Some contradiction here?

Other sectors have seen massive growth in employment; employment rates as % of working age population far above those of the 1970s. Just the jobs are not in the manufacturing sector.

 

[Jacob]

You keep on believing that if you want to. They fought whether the jobs were needed or not. More often it was about money, or in support of others. Fat lot of good that did.

Not good to seek better wages or support other workers? I don't agree!
The workers have as much right as the owners to negotiate their terms and conditions.

It certainly does help, but it doesn't help just quoting views that are opinions that agree with your own.

I ask the neutral question and merely link the answers. e.g. Einstein on Socialism
I think what you really mean is that it doesn't help just quoting views that disagree with your own!

Everyone has an opinion. The truth is always somewhere between the two opposing views,

Sometimes. More often it's one person wrong and the other right.

and is rarely "It's all the fault of" IMHO at least.

Can be!

 

[Amplidyne]

Not good to seek better wages or support other workers? I don't agree!
The workers have as much right as the owners to negotiate their terms and conditions.

I ask the neutral question and merely link the answers. e.g. Einstein on Socialism


Sometimes. More often it's one person wrong and the other right.

Can be!

You always being right of course.

But that's OK you carry on with your belief that somehow this lot will be better than the last lot, and so on back to the time of Pitt the Younger and beyond.

I have no faith in any of them personally. Particularly not the left.

But then you couldn't get a 5 thou feeler between the main parties in reality.

It's just down to who does less damage IMHO.

 

[Jacob]

You always being right of course.

Can't help it if you are always wrong!

.....I have no faith in any of them personally. Particularly not the left.

Really? There's a surprise!
I think the biggest difference is the the right are driven traditionally by resistance to change, which really means hanging on to wealth, land, privilege, come what may.
They conceal this under a false ideology (neo liberalism etc), whereas the left are more pragmatic and concerned simply with what needs to be done.
As a result big things have been done - NHS being main one, and many other improvements to life for us all. Easier to implement just after WW2 when there was urgency, and it lasted through the post war consensus when the tories accepted the advantages.
Only since Thatcher that serious efforts put in to demolishing civilisation as we knew it, Brexit being their biggest mistake.

 

[Amplidyne]

Can't help it if you are always wrong!

You've just proved my point.

Good luck with the rest. I can only assume that none of the changes effects you.

It's not a matter of "resistance to change" it's a matter of that change being actually for the better.

That's not always so. Other countries have managed without the revered NHS.

You keep coming back to Thatcher.

What about Blair?

Oh I forgot, he was a Labour PM.

 

[Jacob]

.... I can only assume that none of the changes effects you.

We lose the winter fuel payment. Not too bothered myself but not a good move by a party supposed to be defending the 99%

It's not a matter of "resistance to change" it's a matter of that change being actually for the better.

Tory party based on resistance to change - almost an ideology in itself, as spelled out repeatedly by Salisbury and many other tory institutions.

That's not always so. Other countries have managed without the revered NHS.

All modern states have something equivalent, even the USA, for better or worse.

You keep coming back to Thatcher.

What about Blair?

Blair was Thatcherite too, a.k.a. "Blatcherite"

Oh I forgot, he was a Labour PM.

A bit of a dud. Some things good.