advertisement


Torys vote to keep SH*T in the water.

I am really not too interested in the tactical comms aspect of this. I'm not minimizing the structural issues, decades of under-investment etc. But these have been around for ages: why the escalation of problems now? There are no similar escalations in other countries, AFAICT. We've been given a reason (shortage of basic chemicals) and a root cause (lack of HGV drivers to transport the stuff). If this is real, B****t is clearly a major factor; if not, it's just window dressing put forward by the water companies and the cause is something else. Anybody planning on using British beaches next year should be interested in getting a coherent answer.
It’s not just a comms issue, it’s a question of figuring out what’s going on and understanding its broader significance, which means distinguishing minor causes from major, short term from long term factors etc. If this all comes down to a shortage of chemicals due to transportation issues it’s a storm in a teacup, really, because it will be resolved before very long, Brexit or no Brexit. If it’s symptomatic of deeper issues regarding transportation, utilities, accountability - then Brexit doesn't explain much and is basically a distraction.

There are lots of obvious differences between the UK and much of Europe that might explain why we seem especially badly affected - we’re an island, we have an absentee government, our utilities are run for profit, transport infrastructure is run down etc. - and presumably any number of less obvious reasons such as the one Gav points to. Brexit’s obviously in the mix but it’s not clear it’s the key difference.
 
It seems every week the Conservatives draw back the curtain on a new debasement for Britain and I’m surprised Johnson’s SpAds haven’t suggested Frosty blames this one on the EU.
 
My supine, worthless, shut for brains excuse for an MP voted for brown rivers, obviously. He's one of Boris's useful idiots.

As did my toad faced newly minted Conservative MP who’s only comments on anything are about preserving green fields. Hopefully we won’t see him again.
 
Ben Jennings on Boris Johnson’s partial U-turn on sewage – cartoon

3030.jpg


https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ris-johnsons-partial-u-turn-on-sewage-cartoon

Hmmm, bunter depifle up the **** creek looking for his paddle.
 
So you want your pension fund to deliver zero, do you? You first.
No, that’s a false premise. I’d like my pension fund to invest in businesses that make a legitimate profit, not public utility monopolies that are milked dry. There’s no reason why pension funds should invest in utilities when they could invest elsewhere. The reason they invest in utilities is because there’s money in them; if there wasn’t, they’d move out and put it elsewhere. It’s not as though they’re forced to invest and obliged to accept a null return on anything.
 
So you want shite-filled rivers to fund your pension, do you?
No, I want companies to be properly regulated and people to recognise that "shareholders" are not some evil trough feeding parasites but principally your and my pension funds. If you want to have a pension beyond the state pittance you owe it to yourself to educate yourself as to how it works, unless you plan to work until you are nearly 70 and then live on less than £100pw.
 
No, that’s a false premise. I’d like my pension fund to invest in businesses that make a legitimate profit, not public utility monopolies that are milked dry. There’s no reason why pension funds should invest in utilities when they could invest elsewhere. The reason they invest in utilities is because there’s money in them; if there wasn’t, they’d move out and put it elsewhere. It’s not as though they’re forced to invest and obliged to accept a null return on anything.
I'm railing against the vilification here of "shareholders" when the reality is that all of us who have a pension are de facto shareholders. This doesn't mean that I want the companies in which I'm invested to mince babies for profit, but those that don't make at least some honest living won't get investment, because it I get zero return I'll move my funds and blow the lot on fizzy pop and Spangles.
 
I'm railing against the vilification here of "shareholders" when the reality is that all of us who have a pension are de facto shareholders. This doesn't mean that I want the companies in which I'm invested to mince babies for profit, but those that don't make at least some honest living won't get investment, because it I get zero return I'll move my funds and blow the lot on fizzy pop and Spangles.
Yes, I’m with you on the vilification of shareholders, but there’s no risk that pensions would be obligated to accept zero return. Why would they? They’d just invest the fund differently, not in public utilities.
 
No, I want companies to be properly regulated and people to recognise that "shareholders" are not some evil trough feeding parasites but principally your and my pension funds. If you want to have a pension beyond the state pittance you owe it to yourself to educate yourself as to how it works, unless you plan to work until you are nearly 70 and then live on less than £100pw.
Pontius hacked your account?
You're not the possesor of some unique arcane knowledge, I'm well aware how pension funds work. I imagine most people on here do, but nevertheless very kind of you to mansplain it to me.
To be perfectly clear, I wouldn't mind my fund dipped by the amount invested in polluting water companies. It's an exceptional case. In any case, I have, since the eighties, been in an ethical fund, and its quite possible it doesn't hold any shares. Still, if you are prepared to make that moral compromise and hold poluters shares, I'll think fondly of you in terms of their contribution to the rivers whenver a floater spirals by. You could, of course, tell your fund that you are unhappy with them holding those shares, and unless they relinquish them you'll walk.
 
Pontius hacked your account?
You're not the possesor of some unique arcane knowledge, I'm well aware how pension funds work. I imagine most people on here do, but nevertheless very kind of you to mansplain it to me.
To be perfectly clear, I wouldn't mind my fund dipped by the amount invested in polluting water companies. It's an exceptional case. In any case, I have, since the eighties, been in an ethical fund, and its quite possible it doesn't hold any shares. Still, if you are prepared to make that moral compromise and hold poluters shares, I'll think fondly of you in terms of their contribution to the rivers whenver a floater spirals by. You could, of course, tell your fund that you are unhappy with them holding those shares, and unless they relinquish them you'll walk.
Stop banging on about evil shareholders then. You are one.
 
No it's not. It's a symptom of water companies being allowed to get away with murder. There's plenty of filth dumped in rural areas with low population densities, and in big cities with high population densities where you can't afford to dump turds in the road they are dealt with.

Do you feel they’d be better run under public ownership? I’d suggest the public utility companies were largely woeful. Growing up in Cornwall, crap in the sea was always an issue eg the formation of surfers against sewage was just after south west water was formed (privatised) because they could actually do something about the problem.
 
It seems to me that this was a perfect 'shoot yourself in the foot' exercise.

Tories: When we leave the EU, we will ensure that the UK has even higher environmental standards than the EU.

Lords: OK, let's see some action on that front.

Tories: Oh no, that would be too expensive, anyway it's all private companies' fault, nothing we can do, sorry.

They can't blame the EU for this fiasco. That may actually be a tiny benefit of leaving.
 
As did my toad faced newly minted Conservative MP who’s only comments on anything are about preserving green fields. Hopefully we won’t see him again.

Do you have an issue with green fields, or just tory MPs?

They can't blame the EU for this fiasco. That may actually be a tiny benefit of leaving.

You've just named one of the most compelling reasons for leaving the EU. The government can no longer hide its grubbier deeds behind the EU. It is directly accountable for its decisions.
 
I don't need to go to Greece to dodge turds. I can do it on home territory in Shoreham by Sea. Southern Water had a record £90million fine this year, and yet our wonderful (not) MP Gillian Keegan voted against the amendment. How does that work?
The same way it works along the coast here in Hastings where we've had major problems with raw sewage getting into the sea and our totally useless Tory MP Sally-Ann Hart also voted against the amendment.
 
Do you have an issue with green fields, or just tory MPs?

I have an issue with toady MPs who do nothing for an area except make a fuss about one issue then vote hypocritically. He really is an obnoxious little turd who batted the local Catholic priest from his Facebook page for asking an uncomfortable question. He won’t get in again, I suspect the red wall will get this one back.
 
Do you feel they’d be better run under public ownership? I’d suggest the public utility companies were largely woeful. Growing up in Cornwall, crap in the sea was always an issue eg the formation of surfers against sewage was just after south west water was formed (privatised) because they could actually do something about the problem.
No, I don't think so. The issue is one of effective regulation. I don't believe the bit about "privatised companies can actually do something about it" . The ineffectual public ownership trope is just as lazy as the one about evil capitalism and shareholder leeches. That there are examples of both does not justify the generalisation. If companies are ineffectual, they generally fold. If they are effectively regulated then they realise that breaking the rules is costly and that fines hammer the bottom line, so they behave.
 


advertisement


Back
Top