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]

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.