Thames stink

[millionreasons]

I presume it's not just me who sees some discrepancy in a) a 31% increase in profits b) missing a target on leaks for the third year running and c) applying for a drought order?

Or maybe I should rephrase it:- I presume it's not just me who sees a discrepancy in allowing our utilities to be a) profit-making, b) owned by big conglomerates who can buy and sell them at will and c) have a complete monopoly over the local market?

 

Comments

[mirrorblue.livejournal.com]

complete monopoly

Next time it rains, go into the street, tilt your head back and open your mouth. That'll show 'em.

[millionreasons.livejournal.com]

My point was that the other utilities were privatised under the somewhat spurious notion of 'choice' and to an extent that option exists - one can choose one's electricity, gas and phone line suppliers, but I can't choose a different water company.

[mooism.livejournal.com]

Even with gas and electricity, there’s no competition in providing the infrastructure. If there was competition in water supply, there’d still be local monopolies on the water pipes, and they’d still leak.

[millionreasons.livejournal.com]

Yup, I don't agree with the privatisation of utilities; however if I'm fed up with the business practices of e.g. NTL, I can swap to a less odious company.

[mirrorblue.livejournal.com]

Remember state investment in nationalised public industries is still ultimately funded by the private sector; or, in the rare cases where this is not true, it is underfunded, or funded by unsustainable borrowing. Not that I defend water privatisation. Or anything, really. Let she who gives a toss throw the first sponge.

[millionreasons.livejournal.com]

>>Remember state investment in nationalised public industries is still ultimately funded by the private sector

Oh yeah and that weird little thing called taxes.

[mirrorblue.livejournal.com]

Taxes on private income, this would be then, would it? So ultimately funded by the private sector, as I said.

And if you say well, let's nationalise the entire economy, State income then comes from the State having a monopoly on foreign exports. Countries that try this end up corrupt, and then bankrupt and the little babies can't get good medicine *sniff* other than by accepting charity from countries who run their affairs pragmatically. Anyway, like I said, who cares? The cities were your idea in the first place; why should I help you now? ;¬)

[millionreasons.livejournal.com]

You're not making sense. Private income isn't the same as the private sector. And there's some leeway between having a neo-liberal free market and communism. I'm not in favour of a state-run economy, I'm in favour of essential services (gas, electricity, water) not being run by PLCs and certainly not in the monopoly terms that Thames Water do. Having no choice over one's water supply is the same as the water industry was nationalised but with higher bills, worse service and knowledge that my cash is going to shareholders rather than fixing leaks.

To suggest that I want a nationalised economy implies that you're having your own argument with different issues. Who exactly is the 'you' in "cities were your idea in the first place"?? Either have a rational argument *or* be surreal - doing both at once is ineffective.

[mirrorblue.livejournal.com]

If the private sector in your economic model only does inessential things, why have it at all? I'm serious.

doing both at once is ineffective

depends what you're trying to achieve

not in the monopoly terms that Thames Water do

I agree with you. Like I said, I don't defend water privatisation. But you could always get on your bike and become an economic migrant to a country you consider has better essential services and general economic arrangements. It's all the rage, they say.

[millionreasons.livejournal.com]

>>If the private sector in your economic model....etc

I wouldn't want the government deciding which food I could eat.

I think most people, except Marxists and Hard-right IMF apologists, would agree that a mixed market is the best thing to have, but I'd rather the UK be more like Sweden (high taxes, good services) than the weird post-privatised shit we have here.

>>depends what you're trying to achieve

I'm assuming you're trying to put fwd a cohesive argument.

>>become an economic migrant

I don't think a return to Doncaster is on the cards.