PM statement at Number 10

[trundlenut]

8 minutes ago, moley said:

Technically true: combined Labour governments borrowed a little more than £500bn over their 33 years while the governments since 2010 have borrowed a bit more than £670bn.

but.....it turns out that all Labour governments borrowed about 70% of GDP while the governments since 2010 borrowed about 40% of GDP,

 

My point was that it was Labour under Gordon Brown who bailed out the banks to the tune of £500bn.

So Gordon Brown probably borrowed more than anyone else did in the Labour Party. 

[trundlenut]

3 minutes ago, CWARD said:

 

Confirming Torys only borrowed more in cash terms not in adjusted figures for inflation or economic growth 

Nearly right, try reading your own source. 

 

 

Really I don't care, it was just a figure I found surprising, it would suggest that growth in the economy over time gives us such big numbers to deal with. Then you can torture the data to give you pretty much whatever outcome you want to support your viewpoint. 

[KenONeill]

11 hours ago, Lee01 said:

There was. He resigned today. It seems if you have a religious thought it's only acceptable if you're a vicars daughter. 

Look at the policies. Lib Dem and Labour are pretty centrist.

Actually I'm more concerned with how someone who knew the LD's policies on same sex relationships, and apparently holds a fairly fundamentalist Christian view on them personally, could join the LDs, never mind accept nomination for a leadership election.

[CWARD]

It's politics. They will say anything to get power and as Lord Action stated "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" religious believes and all

[swedishskoda]

On 2017-06-14 at 23:17, CWARD said:

 

When did nationalising industries become centrist. 

 

1970's (British Leyland)? Or, if you include nationalising of services, the 1940's (British Railways). Neither Wilson nor Attlee can be characterised as die-hard revolutionaries.

 

It's odd how much of what was centrist policy just a generation ago now is described as being extreme leftwing while what was once considered as absurd - e.g. privatisation of the Royal Mail, the British Railways, or public water authorities - is now seen as perfectly normal.

[Adam_]

Take a look at @Fi_Rutherford's Tweet:

 

 

[CWARD]

11 minutes ago, swedishskoda said:

 

1970's (British Leyland)? Or, if you include nationalising of services, the 1940's (British Railways). Neither Wilson nor Attlee can be characterised as die-hard revolutionaries.

 

It's odd how much of what was centrist policy just a generation ago now is described as being extreme leftwing while what was once considered as absurd - e.g. privatisation of the Royal Mail, the British Railways, or public water authorities - is now seen as perfectly normal.

 

How many of these industries had been run into the ground when they were nationalised. The water industries a prime example with much of the distribution network not upgraded since Victorian times. Since privatisation an average of £3.5bn per year is going back into reinvesting in the network including during the last decade the massive project of linking reservoirs together to avoid the drought situations of the past all at time when the population has grown massively and so has demand. All this for what costs most households around a £1 a day and we want to nationalise it again, that is fairly absurd. Could you imagine how long it would have taken for the Lancashire water contamination of 2015 to have been resolved, flushing the entire network through light filters to kill off the bug, if it had still been nationalised.   

[trundlenut]

5 hours ago, CWARD said:

 

How many of these industries had been run into the ground when they were nationalised. The water industries a prime example with much of the distribution network not upgraded since Victorian times. Since privatisation an average of £3.5bn per year is going back into reinvesting in the network including during the last decade the massive project of linking reservoirs together to avoid the drought situations of the past all at time when the population has grown massively and so has demand. All this for what costs most households around a £1 a day and we want to nationalise it again, that is fairly absurd. Could you imagine how long it would have taken for the Lancashire water contamination of 2015 to have been resolved, flushing the entire network through light filters to kill off the bug, if it had still been nationalised.   

Although much of the AMP undertaken is specified by the regulators or done to meet legislative requirements. 

[VWD]

13 hours ago, CWARD said:

. Could you imagine how long it would have taken for the Lancashire water contamination of 2015 to have been resolved, flushing the entire network through light filters to kill off the bug, if it had still been nationalised.   

But what has not been disclosed is how a certain water Company STILL maintains that black gunge in cisterns/washing machines and coming out of the taps can happen. Common explanation is that's a microbe that only flourishes when exposed to air. MICROBE in supposedly CLEAN ,SANITISED water, which they can't /wont ( because it costs too much) , to prevent.

And THAT is not water contamination ?

We use a water jug and it's regular to find black gunge in the non filtered part.

Toilet cistern at water line is black. Washing machine water entry/ powder compartment- needs regular removal of muck.

[Ryeman]

13 hours ago, CWARD said:

 

How many of these industries had been run into the ground when they were nationalised. The water industries a prime example with much of the distribution network not upgraded since Victorian times. Since privatisation an average of £3.5bn per year is going back into reinvesting in the network including during the last decade the massive project of linking reservoirs together to avoid the drought situations of the past all at time when the population has grown massively and so has demand. All this for what costs most households around a £1 a day and we want to nationalise it again, that is fairly absurd. Could you imagine how long it would have taken for the Lancashire water contamination of 2015 to have been resolved, flushing the entire network through light filters to kill off the bug, if it had still been nationalised.   

The Victorian experience is one of privatisation leading to short term asset stripping, maximising profits and then dumping.

 

[trundlenut]

9 hours ago, Ryeman said:

The Victorian experience is one of privatisation leading to short term asset stripping, maximising profits and then dumping.

 

An awful lot of the investment made by the water companies on both the water supply and waste water sides has been done because of EU legislation, specifically the water framework directive. They are required to improve the quality of discharges, make better use of the water they abstract, make it cleaner and work to stop stuff like fertiliser impacting water resources. Without this legislation it wouldn't have happened. 

[Ryeman]

So now we have it - the conservatives don't like (EU) rules that impinge on their private sector, short term, asset stripping sensibilities.

Capitalism reminds me of a high rise on fire - there's not enough profit in prevention and little interest in prosecuting exploiters.

[CWARD]

The whole of the UK operates under the same regulations so there should be no variation to the quality. England is the only country to have fully privatised, Wales part privatised, Scotland is state owned ownership of a private company and Northern Ireland remained government owned and controlled. In water quality tests England came top and Northern Ireland a distant last. 

Its very wordy but worth a read or just skip to the summary

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/08/04/the-success-of-water-privatisation-in-england-is-now-under-attack/#61c386841ad2

 

The black gunk we've only suffered with once on a new kitchen tap fitting. We followed the Yorkshire Water guidelines and discovered it was a mesh filter on the tap spout. Removed the filter, cleaned the inside of the tap with Milton and it never came back. 

Only way to get sterile water is to boil it which would be very expensive or higher doses of chlorine which effects the taste. You'll never get water 100% from a tap or a bottle only safe drinking water. 

 

[trundlenut]

1 hour ago, CWARD said:

The whole of the UK operates under the same regulations so there should be no variation to the quality. England is the only country to have fully privatised, Wales part privatised, Scotland is state owned ownership of a private company and Northern Ireland remained government owned and controlled. In water quality tests England came top and Northern Ireland a distant last. 

Its very wordy but worth a read or just skip to the summary

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/08/04/the-success-of-water-privatisation-in-england-is-now-under-attack/#61c386841ad2

 

The black gunk we've only suffered with once on a new kitchen tap fitting. We followed the Yorkshire Water guidelines and discovered it was a mesh filter on the tap spout. Removed the filter, cleaned the inside of the tap with Milton and it never came back. 

Only way to get sterile water is to boil it which would be very expensive or higher doses of chlorine which effects the taste. You'll never get water 100% from a tap or a bottle only safe drinking water. 

 

Actually I don't think the UK does operate under the same regs. The water act only applies to England and Wales. Its all done to how the WFD and daughter directives have been transposed. Particularly in rural areas such as Northern Scotland and NI a lot of the water supply is small scale and quite a lot isn't actually down to the "water board". So variation in quality can be caused by local arrangements and often a lack of options for the water supply. 

[trundlenut]

Also, that forbes article misses out the fact that the reason water quality has improved is not a result of privatisation but of legislation. I worked on AMP 3,4 and 5 for Welsh Water, Wessex, Thames and a bit for Severn Trent. We were doing improvement work to either comply with legislation or following prosecution. 

 

There were other things done such as renewable energy projects which were based on a financial benefit, but a lot of it was just down to compliance. So how much extra money was available as a result of privatisation, I don't know. 

 

Also we are now getting deregulation of supply, so you will have competing suppliers in an area rather than one option. It will be interesting to see what happens with this. 

[trundlenut]

Just to be clear, supply deregulation is for business users not the public. 

[CWARD]

2 hours ago, trundlenut said:

An awful lot of the investment made by the water companies on both the water supply and waste water sides has been done because of EU legislation

 

24 minutes ago, trundlenut said:

Actually I don't think the UK does operate under the same regs. The water act only applies to England and Wales. Its all done to how the WFD and daughter directives have been transposed. Particularly in rural areas such as Northern Scotland and NI a lot of the water supply is small scale and quite a lot isn't actually down to the "water board". So variation in quality can be caused by local arrangements and often a lack of options for the water supply. 

 

Which one is it? EU legislation which we have to comply with or do we have lesser laws in place. 

I know Yorkshire Water adhere to WFD/EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). One of my clients who has their water supply from their own spring tested by Harrogate Borough Council under the same directive.

The small scale supplies you refer to in Scotland I would imagine go through the same testing through their local authorities too. 

The Forbes article comments on water quality come from Ofwat samples of the companies they regulate not small suppliers who come under the control of local authorities. 

[trundlenut]

10 minutes ago, CWARD said:

 

 

Which one is it? EU legislation which we have to comply with or do we have lesser laws in place. 

I know Yorkshire Water adhere to WFD/EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). One of my clients who has their water supply from their own spring tested by Harrogate Borough Council under the same directive.

The small scale supplies you refer to in Scotland I would imagine go through the same testing through their local authorities too. 

The Forbes article comments on water quality come from Ofwat samples of the companies they regulate not small suppliers who come under the control of local authorities. 

Its all driven by the WFD but how it is transposed into the legislation of the parts of the member states varies. There are derogations, delays, exceptions and existing legislation which either doesn't comply or may conflict with it. Things like this need to be resolved and often there can be quite a bit of leeway in how states decide to implement legislation in order to achieve the outcome specified in the directives. 

 

For example there is a small area of Wales where abstraction licensing legislation doesn't apply, or didn't until recently. 

 

For private water supplies and private distribution networks the level of testing and monitoring is lower than for public supplies. As you say the local authority has responsibility over them to ensure they are safe and wholesome and is required to undertake a risk assessment over every supply. But you don't have to notify them that you have a supply and it is difficult for them to force access. 

 

A full suite of chemical analysis for a private water supply cost about £1000 per sample and the user is supposed to pay for the council testing and assessment costs. Consequently you may end up doing a full suite once then limited testing every few years after that as Joe Bloggs in his cottage out in the sticks couldn't afford it. 

 

A public water supply company often tests on a daily basis by comparison. Obviously the volumes of water involved make a difference. 

 

So you have separate legislation covering private and public water supplies which are also out of step with each other but water supplies under both may be covered by the same abstraction licensing legislation and this is likely to be updated to bring it into the Environmental Permitting regs, which links back to the WFD, because currently it has some issues which date back to the 1990s.  This is for England, there is a completely different system in Scotland. 

[Rooted]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Water

Lovely stuff,

water paid along with the Council Tax.

 There are places the water out the tap is the same as locally is bottled and sold in shops, tastes better from taps though.

 

Speyside homes should have some lovely water out of taps but sadly Scottish Water seem to mess up there.

[VWD]

11 hours ago, CWARD said:

 

 

Which one is it? EU legislation which we have to comply with or do we have lesser laws in place. 

I know Yorkshire Water adhere to WFD/EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). One of my clients who has their water supply from their own spring tested by Harrogate Borough Council under the same directive.

The small scale supplies you refer to in Scotland I would imagine go through the same testing through their local authorities too. 

The Forbes article comments on water quality come from Ofwat samples of the companies they regulate not small suppliers who come under the control of local authorities. 

BUT ,or water folks slogan is "Water- Safe in OUR HANDS".

I hesitate to drink the water t of the tap, and we regularly buy in water to drink, rather than tap water, which has often small bits of black gunge in it .Lot of difference from in my time in the West Highlands, where worst we had to worry about was tadpoles out of the tap. Then at least , we knew the water was clean, ad a sieve removed the tadpoles.

[gadgetman]

9 hours ago, VWD said:

BUT ,or water folks slogan is "Water- Safe in OUR HANDS".

I hesitate to drink the water t of the tap, and we regularly buy in water to drink, rather than tap water, which has often small bits of black gunge in it .Lot of difference from in my time in the West Highlands, where worst we had to worry about was tadpoles out of the tap. Then at least , we knew the water was clean, ad a sieve removed the tadpoles.

If you're getting black gunge then this will be from the taps and pipework in your property, not from the supply. 

[KenONeill]

12 minutes ago, gadgetman said:

If you're getting black gunge then this will be from the taps and pipework in your property, not from the supply. 

Are you using the water company definition of "taps and pipework in your property", that is anything after the property isolation stopcock?

[gadgetman]

1 hour ago, KenONeill said:

Are you using the water company definition of "taps and pipework in your property", that is anything after the property isolation stopcock?

Anything after the property isolation tap. Of you have concerns on your water supply, contact your local water company who will happily come and check your supply for you. 

 

I do water testing as part of my job. 

[KenONeill]

@gadgetman - Cheers; I was asking for clarity, not least since I know a lot of people who incorrectly think that their responsibility starts at the internal property tap.

[gadgetman]

Exactly. Everything after the stop tap in the street is the owners responsibility.