Drought Hosepipe ban !
Posted 02 May 2012 - 08:10 AM
I wonder how much of our fee actually goes on maintenance of our water system !
Posted 02 May 2012 - 11:42 AM
For every £1 in profit paid to shareholders by Thames Water, £4 is ploughed back into investing in the network. Water is too important to put in the hands of organisations that want to make a fast buck - many of the investors in water companies are pension funds - organisations that need to make reliable long term returns.
Even though fields may be waterlogged, water companies cannot use this water. The extraction and purification process makes use of groundwater and other sources where facilities exist to process and purify it so that 10 million Londoners can enjoy the cheapest and some of the purest and safest water in the world for around £1 a day (and don't forget they take all the s**t away too).
You cannot blame water companies for not being able to fit water meters in certain converted properties and you cannot Thames Water for the additional 1 million people that are projected to move into the South East over the next 20 years, putting huge stress on an areas of the country that is already the driest and most over-populated part of the UK.
You cannot blame water companies for the reduction in household size, meaning that each person uses proportionately more water than in a family home. You cannot blame water companies for the totally unpredictable effects of climate change.
I can't believe everybody thinks its some kind of conspiracy - and anyway, what does a drought actually mean? If you are so concerned about a hosepipe ban then you really need to get some perspective. Otherwise it just looks like people are tilting at windmills for want of something better to do. I think there are industries out there that are much more deserving of people's ire.
Posted 02 May 2012 - 12:32 PM
Posted 02 May 2012 - 12:57 PM
I must have seen five or six different contractors digging it up, cocking it up, backfilling it and, presumably going to bank a big cheque for the work. As I'm not a shareholder of who's ever water it was, I assume I can't demand to see an estimate of how many reservoir fulls were lost plus the cost of the works.
Shareholders, five or six different contractors - doesn't that say a lot?
Posted 02 May 2012 - 01:04 PM
PS At least i still recieve my dividends regardless !
Edited by Dazza, 02 May 2012 - 01:08 PM.
Posted 02 May 2012 - 01:51 PM
Posted 02 May 2012 - 03:15 PM
At least in 1977 we had prolonged period of sunshine & no rain now thats what i call a drought !
PS GrahamB speculation !
Posted 02 May 2012 - 04:50 PM
Posted 02 May 2012 - 05:07 PM
Yeah but the point is if it had stayed nationalised we would have been in an even worse state than we are now. That's why the companies that took over (esp Thames) are running to catch up.
The privatisation of the water industry centred around reducing the role of the state and public sector borrowing not improving services or infrastructure. There is no evidence to suggest that "we would be in a worse state now" had it not been privatised in 1989. Pre-privatisation Thatcherite economic policies curtailed the abiltiy of the Regional Water Boards to raise finance for investment resulting in her government laying the RWAs out to dry ie spinning the old private panacea myth to the public!
So what have the UK private water companies done apart from significantly increase prices and profit? Not a lot. And post privatisation the new companies were hardly running to catch up more like throwing out the baby with the bath water!
"20. After privatisation profits started to soar in real terms—between 1990/91 and 1997/8 the pre-tax profits of the ten water and sewerage companies increased by 147% [<a href="http://www.parliamen...htm#note15">15] at a time when customers faced continual price rises. Water and sewerage prices rose respectively by 36% and 42% from 1988-1998 (in real terms) " http://www.parliamen...97/59703.htm#a3
Posted 02 May 2012 - 07:44 PM
If they can afford the (mostly vulgar) bathrooms these aqua-avaricious folk can probably afford the water but they have got to be as guilty as the water companies and their broken mains, surely? Why not limit the number of bathrooms in a house - we have so many other domestic environmental regulations now - can't see how a sensible one like this would add to the burden?
PS none of the folk in aforementioned houses gave the impression of being particularly clean!
Posted 02 May 2012 - 08:03 PM
The BBC try to make sense of it at:
Posted 02 May 2012 - 09:26 PM
Posted 02 May 2012 - 09:31 PM
Posted 02 May 2012 - 09:34 PM
Bit of the old green monster if you ask me !