Southern Water Fined £90million.

Do you think China would allow a British company own Shanghai port?

Get it back into British state hands.

If you had asked me this 2 years ago I would of said the UKz could not afford it.

Depending what you read we found £Trillion for covid from some cupboard.

There must be other cupboards.
 
Last edited:
Same_as_before said:
Do you think China would allow a British company own Shanghai port?

Get it back into British state hands.

If you had asked me this 2 years ago I would of said the UKz could not afford it.

Depending what you read we found £Trillion for covid from some cupboard.

There must be other cupboards.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, those cupboards are only available if it makes private companies money.
 
Nero said:
Take it all back really. The Port of Felixstowe is massively important to this country. It, like all ports, use to be State owned and is now also owned by China.
Click to expand...

Then take it back and compensate the Chinese. Isn't it funny that the Tories are overseeing the sale of the nation to what they refer to as 'communist' countries?
 
Nero said:
That process isn't free to run and maintain.
Click to expand...
He's not claiming it's free to run and maintain. I don't think anyone would. He's simply claiming that free access to water should be a human right not a perk dependent on ability to pay. Which seems more than a reasonable stance to me. My only concern is that it would support water wastage. So personally I think we should get x number of litres per year free. x being based on whatever is deemed a reasonable years consumption.
 
coluka said:
I am no expert in the water industry just a layman’s view. The oweners of these water companies are largely hedgefunds, banks, foreign governments even 70%+ thought to be overseas. They have no interest other than profit.

The regulators seem pretty toothless, £90M is a significant fine but I doubt the owners will care too much. I expect they will make sure it is paid for through cut backs in staff, scaling back on improvements in infrastructure and wastage etc. However the biggest loser will be the customer in increased billing charges. The mishmash of owners should be stripped of ownership going by their track record. The management are calculating or incompetent probably both.

Water should be like energy and other essential services like railways, state owned and run
Click to expand...
I think energy is a different gravy. There are too many alternatives. But I do think that the main companies should be UK owned.
 
I learned something last week: swimming isnt banned in most rivers not because of, as I thought, over protective laws to prevent accidents & drowning, but due to pollutants, mostly from raw sewage.
 
BoroMart said:
He's not claiming it's free to run and maintain. I don't think anyone would. He's simply claiming that free access to water should be a human right not a perk dependent on ability to pay. Which seems more than a reasonable stance to me. My only concern is that it would support water wastage. So personally I think we should get x number of litres per year free. x being based on whatever is deemed a reasonable years consumption.
Click to expand...
We all have to pay for it somehow, either through tax, or bills. I hope that those on low incomes, or not working get some sort of relief. As I mentioned before too, water supply cannot be turned off regardless, so to an extent it is recognised as a basic need for life. It's not like gas and electric that will be switched off if people can't pay.
 
MoggasDog said:
I learned something last week: swimming isnt banned in most rivers not because of, as I thought, over protective laws to prevent accidents & drowning, but due to pollutants, mostly from raw sewage.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't swim in rivers for that reasons. Water companies are allowed to pump directly into rivers during storms or sustained periods of heavy rainfall.
 
Same_as_before said:
I think energy is a different gravy. There are too many alternatives. But I do think that the main companies should be UK owned.
Click to expand...
i get the point you are making re energy in respect of competition for the customer. In reality though the companies themselves are competing in buying wholesale energy, a market that seems easy to manipulate to keep costs high. That is in part where the real issues lay and money is made. The smaller suppliers we have the choice of using are often companies relying on low cost setups to compete for our custom, some are clearly unsustainable which is why so many have eventually gone bust

We import 36% (net) of energy. Personally, I think that is too high especially as we move toward low carbon. We should be investing more in green energy within the UK (off shore wind, Hydro, Tidal, solar, biomass, Geothermal) Nuclear is low carbon but very expensive to build and maintain, we probably need to continue to keep investing in it for the forseeable though imho.
 
Nero said:
We all have to pay for it somehow, either through tax, or bills. I hope that those on low incomes, or not working get some sort of relief. As I mentioned before too, water supply cannot be turned off regardless, so to an extent it is recognised as a basic need for life. It's not like gas and electric that will be switched off if people can't pay.
Click to expand...
So we all need it to survive, so it isn't something I'm comfortable with corporations exploiting for profit, and it's something we should definitely show some socialism around to ensure the very poorest have access without any threat of financial repercussions.
 
coluka said:
Nuclear is low carbon but very expensive to build and maintain, we probably need to continue to keep investing in it for the forseeable though imho.
Click to expand...
I believe that modern nuclear strategy is to build smaller reactors, that are much cheaper to build and operate.
 
BoroMart said:
He's not claiming it's free to run and maintain. I don't think anyone would. He's simply claiming that free access to water should be a human right not a perk dependent on ability to pay. Which seems more than a reasonable stance to me. My only concern is that it would support water wastage. So personally I think we should get x number of litres per year free. x being based on whatever is deemed a reasonable years consumption.
Click to expand...
That's what I was trying to say but you've made it make sense. Cheers.

What I would like to know is where the £90 million goes. Will the local public be compensated or will the execs have to skip an upgrade on their jags this year and put the kitchen refurb on hold for 12 months?
 
Randy said:
That's what I was trying to say but you've made it make sense. Cheers.

What I would like to know is where the £90 million goes. Will the local public be compensated or will the execs have to skip an upgrade on their jags this year and put the kitchen refurb on hold for 12 months?
Click to expand...
I reckon Matt Hancock will have some friends (or lovers) who now have a 90mill contract to clean up the rivers that have been polluted
 
Last edited:
Randy said:
That's what I was trying to say but you've made it make sense. Cheers.

What I would like to know is where the £90 million goes. Will the local public be compensated or will the execs have to skip an upgrade on their jags this year and put the kitchen refurb on hold for 12 months?
Click to expand...
Apologies for having a pop Randy! No hard feelings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top