talkFORUM

United Utilities, our water supplier, is imposing a hosepipe ban. This in itself is not a major burden to bear.
However take this with the fact that every day they lose over 130litres/house through leaks. And those of us in this area will know that they aren’t the most speedy when it comes to attending to repair.
They will have, this year, paid out over £270m in dividends to shareholders.
It might only be a fraction of their budget but similar payouts over the years could have helped the investment in repair and replacement.
I never understood the privatisation of water. It has not provided competition. In this area before it was privatised we had a excellent water supply system, due to the foresight of our Victorian and Edwardian ancestors, organised by our local authorities.

If you look at Agenda 21 it sequestrated overall ownership of all natural resources such as water, even rain to government control. Which is quite sinister when you think about it. Just use a bucket in the garden rather than a hose.

But on a serious not I would much rather have water and all other utilities under public ownership were it not for the fact they could and would be used by local authorities to raise revenue in an even worse way than under privatisation, but without the reinvestment or the standards or union strikes.

On the plus side, most water companies have not imposed a hose pipe ban or told people to use a standpipe even though we have not had rain for weeks. This is presumably because they manage supplies better than they did in 1976.

So I'm ambivalent about it really. Don't like it being in private hands but can't deny it's probably run a lot more efficiently.

When they were in public ownership, they were not part of local authorities, so your concern about taxes is academic.

If you were, for example, a Thames Water customer you would be paying well over the odds for your water and sewage removal because of TW's profligate dividend policy.

What most people forget about the water suppliers is that it is drains and sewage treatment which needs most of the money.

And the drought this summer has got nowhere near the extent of 1976.

VeritasVincit wrote: I never understood the privatisation of water. It has not provided competition. In this area before it was privatised we had a excellent water supply system, due to the foresight of our Victorian and Edwardian ancestors, organised by our local authorities.

They privatised it because they couldn't afford to invest in the wastewater infrastructure. Water standards before the Water Act were largely unregulated within five years of privatisation the government issued new laws raising the standard of drinking water, waste water, conservation, rivers and open water maintenance. These essentially doubled the spending on water infrastructure.

The Water Act wasn't designed to introduce competition, it was designed to offset the costs of maintaining water standards.

Take all concerns privatised back into state control, and make the rich pay.

Live in Scotland, and you won't have to put with this privatisation malarkey.

By sneaking in a toxin to the water supplies for weeks before revealing their machine and its purpose, their tactical supremacy was everything but challenged.

Huge private investment was required in London to cover the cost of unblocking multiple fatbergs caused by the arrival of Moose, Quinn and Big Al in the capital.

Water privatisation is a con...as you are forced to buy from your local provider. No one is competing for your service so you have no choice but to pay - no shopping around unlike other utilities.

Severn Trent keep putting up prices but I rarely see major investment in infrastructure from them.

Zambo wrote:Take all concerns privatised back into state control, and make the rich pay

Bit of a socialist viewpoint, eh, Zambo?
Make "the rich" pay for everything – great incentive for individuals to better themselves, that…

subsub wrote:

Zambo wrote:Take all concerns privatised back into state control, and make the rich pay

Bit of a socialist viewpoint, eh, Zambo?
Make "the rich" pay for everything – great incentive for individuals to better themselves, that…

Digging up posts one year old that are obviously tongue in cheek to get another 'win' on the internet.

#desperate

Zambo wrote:

subsub wrote:

Zambo wrote:Take all concerns privatised back into state control, and make the rich pay

Bit of a socialist viewpoint, eh, Zambo?
Make "the rich" pay for everything – great incentive for individuals to better themselves, that…

Digging up posts one year old that are obviously tongue in cheek to get another 'win' on the internet.

#desperate

It was high up in my New Posts section, as Mr Guardian posted in the thread this morning.
So not exactly 'digging up posts one year old'

And were you being tongue in cheek?

Stop the waterpipes at the border then deal the necessities of killing all the companys .