PM statement at Number 10

[trundlenut]

27 minutes ago, gadgetman said:

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

Or wherever it is actually located. More than once I've dug through a water pipe and eventually found the stop tap is located somewhere bizarre or unhelpful. 

[VWD]

I know that GG- it's same with all services these days. Has been for years, since Maggie decided that privatisation was the way forward( or rather an easy way of getting rid of problems). Gas/electric/ telephone - all the same. Best example is telephone.

Take one from BT .End of their responsibility is master socket.

Gas & electric is meter.

Water is stop C0kk ( and any other thing they can pan off as some one else's problem).

I first passed problem to my repair team, via Env Health, who ( IMHO, unwisely , and without proper investigation) contacted Water Board, who said they'd had no complaints, so it MUST be the supply pipe . I had no problems, as I wanted a separate ( from six other houses) supply. It hasn't( as I knew ) solved problem. But then we can shower with a constant pressure ( and temperature). In fact the problem has gotten worse since then. Cistern has a black coat on the inside.

Last excuse from Water folk was that it was due to some bug, that only gives out black gunge when exposed to the air. So much for "water being safe in their hands". So ,instead of drinking the water we pay for , from  the water board, we put  bottled water into the fridge water dispenser. N more gunge, but in the water jug for the kettle, we regularly get lumps of gunge.

perhaps ,one of these days, I'll ask for a replacement cistern ,as it doesn't work, due to being clogged with - YEP-Gunge.

 

Edited 18 June, 2017 by VWD
Swear filter inneffective.

[john999boy]

12 hours ago, gadgetman said:

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

 

Not strictly always true as I recently found out when I had a bit of a problem with my water meter which was under the kitchen sink next to the internal stop tap.

 

The water board had recently fitted a new analogue meter to 'update' the digital one which we had from when the house was built. In doing so there was a slight leak where it joined to the house pipework. As we were also in the process of fitting a new kitchen it was decided to gain some space by moving the meter outside to the pavement stop tap. The fitter made me aware that this would also make me responsible for the blue pipe from the pavement to the kitchen whereas this had previously been their responsibility.

 

So maybe the correct definition is up to the water meter? 

[Sad555]

Had problems with the water supply some years ago when it started to reduce to a trickle,advised by water supplier to replace stopcock where water entered property,did that no different,advised that there could be charges if faulty on property but agreed to pay,out they came,dug by stopcock in pavement only to find that when they fitted new meter it was leaking and roots from a tree ,like fine hairs a foot long were growing into the feed pipe and blocking the supply so no charge.

[gadgetman]

16 hours ago, VWD said:

I know that GG

Who? 

[domhnall]

On 17/06/2017 at 12:09, 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. 

 

Ofwat is England and Wales only so not sure what they coudl say abotu Scotland and Northern Ireland really

[CWARD]

If you want to get picky then have another source. I still stand by the argument that nationalising an industry doesn't mean that it's improved. 

[VWD]

7 hours ago, gadgetman said:

Who? 

Apologies, gman.

CWARD- NOR does privatising it.

 

[trundlenut]

6 hours ago, CWARD said:

If you want to get picky then have another source. I still stand by the argument that nationalising an industry doesn't mean that it's improved. 

And therefore the same must be true of privatisation. 

 

There are some odd rules with the water companies, a chemical testing lab we regularly used tendered for a contract with Welsh Water, they won it but it meant that over 50% of the testing WW did was with this lab and so WW were legally required to buy the lab and take the services in house. It caused problems for the lab owners. 

Edited 19 June, 2017 by trundlenut

[CWARD]

Welsh Water state their testing is done by Severn Trent Services Group labs who aren't owned by WW. If you say otherwise then who am I to argue. 

[CWARD]

33 minutes ago, VWD said:

Apologies, gman.

CWARD- NOR does privatising it.

 

 

True but that's not the point I was making. 

[trundlenut]

19 minutes ago, CWARD said:

Welsh Water state their testing is done by Severn Trent Services Group labs who aren't owned by WW. If you say otherwise then who am I to argue. 

Most of Severn Trent labs were sold to an Australian company called ALS 2-3 years ago. STW retained Some  capabilities in house and may have taken Bridgend over back from WW. 

 

The lab was the old Severn Trent lab in Bridgend and it was 2011 or 2012 this happened, so that would have been AMP. 5 and we are now in AMP 6, so these services would have been retendered by now. 

 

I have emails about it at work.

 

The problem was they had the potable water testing split between Wakefield and Bridgend and they had to add capacity in Wakefield to compensate. Although Wakefield now belongs to ALS. 

[CWARD]

9 hours ago, trundlenut said:

And therefore the same must be true of privatisation

 

In the case of water the quality shows that privatised company's have produced the better quality water. Compared to the Scottish SOE water industry it is competitive too at around £1 per day.

What would be the point of nationalising the water industry as Corbyn wants. Is there a guarantee to maintain or improve the quality and investment or would we find the industry run down again

[trundlenut]

1 hour ago, CWARD said:

 

In the case of water the quality shows that privatised company's have produced the better quality water. Compared to the Scottish SOE water industry it is competitive too at around £1 per day.

What would be the point of nationalising the water industry as Corbyn wants. Is there a guarantee to maintain or improve the quality and investment or would we find the industry run down again

Remember correlation is not causation. 

[CWARD]

In this case it is hard to argue that the poor state of the water industry prior to privatisation there has been massive improvements. Some of the improvements are down to the WFD as you pointed out but that was only adopted in 2000. Prior to this there had already been huge investments to sort out the poor state of the existing infrastructure. No doubt you had been involved in this in some form. Had the water industries not been privatised and the rise in the population I would bet the quality and availability of water would have been drastically reduced. 

 

Quote

The Water Act 1973 required the regional water authorities to operate on a cost recovery basis, with capital to meet investment requirements raised by borrowing from central government and revenue from services provided. Central government set financial constraints and performance aims for each authority.

In retrospect, the tight fiscal controls applied by central government in the 1970s and 1980s, due, largely, to instability in the wider economy and the high levels of debt inherited by the water authorities, led to insufficient expenditure to meet the capital maintenance and investment requirements of the industry. The resulting problems which were particularly evident in the 1980s, became progressively more unacceptable to the public given their heightened environmental awareness and increasingly stringent European legislation.

In response, the government introduced some changes through the Water Act 1983. This led to some constitutional changes, reduced the role of local government in decision making and gave the authorities scope to access the private capital markets.

In practice these changes failed to deliver the requirements for the necessary capital investment programme and a significant number of pollution incidents continued to occur. With the government unwilling to provide any additional public finance to meet the demand for capital investment, and with the privatisation of other public services underway, government concluded that privatisation of the industry was a viable outcome

 

Quote

Today, almost everyone in England and Wales receives their water and sewerage services from the ten water and sewerage companies and 13 water only companies. The water and sewerage industry is regarded by most independent observers as efficient and well managed. In the 15 years since privatisation, water and sewerage companies in England and Wales have invested around £50 billion to catch up for past under-investment and meet new obligations. To finance this, customers’ bills have increased, on average, by 35% in real terms since privatisation to 2005-06.

 

Source

 

I don't mind that water has risen in price as it's a form of direct taxation and you can see the benefit. My council tax has increased by much more and I get less and less each year. 

 

I would rather the water stays privatised than having to go back to the situation we had in '76 when a water main had ruptured in winter and we spent the most of that summer without running water before it was fixed. Instead we had a 1000ltr water bowser for two streets. It was emptied nearly as soon as it was refilled and then you would wait days for another. With no bottled water in the shops at the time we had to take buckets to my grandma's. I don't want a third world Britain again just so it can stroke someones ideological ego.

[domhnall]

17 hours ago, CWARD said:

If you want to get picky then have another source. I still stand by the argument that nationalising an industry doesn't mean that it's improved. 

 

I wasn't being picky, I was suggesting that you check what was being suggested. You said that Forbes used Ofwat samples to show that water quality in the country they regulate was better than in others. That's like saying by measuring the performance in my Octavia I can prove that it's better than my neighbour's Ford.  

 

I know Water UK well, worked with them for a number of years on a lobbying campaign in Westminster. If they say their members are producing good quality water then it must be true. 

 

 

[CWARD]

19 minutes ago, domhnall said:

 

I wasn't being picky, I was suggesting that you check what was being suggested. You said that Forbes used Ofwat samples to show that water quality in the country they regulate was better than in others. That's like saying by measuring the performance in my Octavia I can prove that it's better than my neighbour's Ford.  

 

I know Water UK well, worked with them for a number of years on a lobbying campaign in Westminster. If they say their members are producing good quality water then it must be true. 

 

 

 

You're right I should have been more clear as it is obviously not just the companies they regulate but all the UK suppliers. 

 

My argument has been in what is the rush to nationalise an industry that has been working well for everyone and provides good value for money. Despite my arguments no one in the last two pages has said why water would be in our, as the consumer, interests to be nationalised as per the Labour manifesto. 

 

Edited 20 June, 2017 by CWARD

[Ootohere]

So the Queens speech today and what a total waste of time and money the past 2 months have been with Theresa May MP PM calling a General Election and 2 months on having achieved less than nothing.

 

So another day of UK politics and no proper government or opposition and just the same old happening for the foreseeable future.

JAM's still Just about managing, and those not managing still not and those doing just fine or very nicely thank you carrying on that way.

[Breezy_Pete]

I'd say she's achieved a lot.

 

 

For the Labour Party. 

[Ootohere]

Same leader, same cronies as sidekicks, still financed by the Unions & still not in Government.

The future is not bright, the future does not feature the 'Red Star'.

[Ootohere]

Just as an after thought, while the 'Red Star' will not feature much the 'Red Hand' certainly could be.

[@Lee]

Nice Hat being worn by Betty today for the speech.

[gadgetman]

6 hours ago, Lee01 said:

Nice Hat being worn by Betty today for the speech.

I think it was a royal FU because she missed the start of Ascot. 

 

Didn't even bother with the traditional attire & crown. 

[@Lee]

7 minutes ago, gadgetman said:

I think it was a royal FU because she missed the start of Ascot. 

 

Didn't even bother with the traditional attire & crown. 

That hat's a deliberate message and a snub to May. No doubt about it. She changed into a yellow dress for Ascot.

A lot's been said about why she didn't wear full regalia and a Crown but, she's 91 and it's been around 33C. No Royal carriage either.

She rocked up in the Bentley. Last time that happened was in 1974. When there were two general elections.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/queen-not-wearing-crown-queens-10659059

[CWARD]

Could also be that she's in nineties, the ceremonial gear weighs a lot and the carriage has no protection from the very hot weather. 

Besides as soon as the ceremonies are finished she can quickly hop back in the car, tell the driver not to spare the horses and get back for the races