Because The United Kingdom?

[rmgill]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Gods sake Ryan. We live on a small island surrounded by fucking saltwater, of course its the same bloody thing! Look, they even reference this on the Thames water website.

Water treatment to make fresh drinking water is a little different than waste water treatment and discharge. 
 

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

https://www.thameswater.co.uk/

They are supposed to treat the water, and release it back into the rivers. When they get backed up, because they didnt invest in the infrastructure for 40 years because they had more important things to do, like paying out to shareholders, they release it in the rivers. This is now happening so often, they dont even report it anymore. Its the reason so many of our rivers are dead.

Looking at the issue, it's a leakage of old pipe infrastructure that they didn't build. Apparently pipe work as old as the Victorian era. 

But it's not getting better. 

 

eakage[edit]

2001–06 (RWE's ownership)[edit]

Thames Water was repeatedly criticised for the amount of water that leaked from its pipes by the industry regulator Ofwat and was fined for this. In May 2006 the leakage was nearly 900 million litres (200 million imperial gallons) per day and in June that year Thames Water missed its target for leakage reduction for the third year in a row.^[51] The Consumer Council for Water, a customers' group, accused Thames Water of continuing to miss its targets for the preceding five years. In July 2006, instead of a fine which would have gone "to the exchequer", the company was required to spend an extra £150 million on repairs.^[52]

Since 2007 (Kemble's ownership)[edit]

Thames Water hit its Ofwat-agreed annual leakage-reduction target for each of the ten years running from 2006 to 2016.^[45]

In 2006–07, the company stated that it had reduced its daily loss through leaks by 120 million litres (26 million imperial gallons) to an average of 695 million litres (153 million imperial gallons) per day.^[53] For 2009–10 the Ofwat-reported daily leakage was 668.9 million litres (147.1 million imperial gallons).^[54] In its price control determination for the period 2010 to 2015, Ofwat did not allow the funds needed to finance a significant further reduction in leakage and used the assumption that daily leakage would be 674 million litres (148 million imperial gallons) in 2010–11 and 673 million litres (148 million imperial gallons) from 2011 to 2012.^[55] In 2011–12, actual daily leakage was 637×10⁶ L (140×10⁶ imp gal); in 2012–13, 646×10⁶ L (142×10⁶ imp gal); in 2013–14, 644×10⁶ L (142×10⁶ imp gal); in 2014–2015, 654×10⁶ L (144×10⁶ imp gal); in 2015–2016, 642×10⁶ L (141×10⁶ imp gal).^[45]

The company achieved these reductions by:

• better pressure management of known problem sectors of its older water network
• replacing 2,736 km (1,700 mi) of worn-out Victorian pipes, mainly under London

These successes in meeting leakage targets mitigated the earlier failures to meet targets. As a result, and in spite of a larger distribution network, Thames Water was leaking slightly less water than at privatisation in 1989, having reduced leakage from its 31,100 km (19,300 mi) network of water pipes by more than a third since its 2004 peak.^[56] As of 2013 and with an older network profile, Thames Water leaked 25.8%^[57] of supply, slightly less than Severn Trent at 27%.^[58] As of 2015 Thames Water leaked 25.1% of supply.^[59]

In June 2018 regulators made Thames Water pay £65 million to customers, among other reasons because they failed to repair leaks.^[60]

In June 2023, Freedom of Information requests revealed that Thames Water leak levels were at their highest for five years. It was estimated to be losing 630 million litres (140 million imperial gallons) a day.^[61]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Oh, LONDON is getting infrastructre, years late. The rest of the country is not. We still largely have the water infrastructure the Victorians bequeathed us with, because in the good years, nobody was digging it up and replacing it. Meanwhile housing firms are still allowed to on watermoors because its cheap land, and everyone is suddenly surprised that half the country ends up underwater when we have a major storm. Which contributes to the sewage system collapsing.

 

Aren't the councils supposed to plan this sort of thing? Looking at Clarkson Farm, they have the wherewith-all to quibble over the color of the paint on Jeremy's restaurant but they can't plan a housing estate that has functional sewage treatment? 
 

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Im not saying Socialism is the answer before you scoff.

No, "it wasn't the war, it was the Council". (cf Theodore Dalrymple on British urbanism)
 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Councils can only plan for what they receive funding for. For example, Bristol has been hoping to receive funding for either a tram system or enhanced rail links for the last 40 years. They got the funding to quadruple a railway line in the last years of the Labour Government, but nothing for the Tramway over the past 14 years. In frustration they built a guided busway, which has satisfied nobody.

Basically, the country has been starved of investment for the past 14 years in the regions. It shows.

[sunday]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_of_the_Ganges

Edited May 6 by sunday

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Councils can only plan for what they receive funding for. For example, Bristol has been hoping to receive funding for either a tram system or enhanced rail links for the last 40 years.

If you're building a housing estate then you PLAN for that and include the cost of the installation in the permitting process. If someone needs to add a pumping station to get sewage up and over the hill of a moor, then that gets included in the process for the permitting. That's WHY the councils have a permitting process in the first place. 

OR did you think it was all oriented around makings sure the roof color matched the local idea of quaint pastoral views? 

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

They got the funding to quadruple a railway line in the last years of the Labour Government, but nothing for the Tramway over the past 14 years. In frustration they built a guided busway, which has satisfied nobody.

Basically, the country has been starved of investment for the past 14 years in the regions. It shows.

How'd they build the guided busway? 

Perhaps noone wants to build the tramway because it's not going to be profitable? 

[Argus]

If building from scratch, a 'guided busway' is usually a lot cheaper than any form of rail. Rail needs both infrastructure and rolling stock with the maintenance for both. A Busway amounts to an under engineered road with, even if built for the purpose, adapted normal buses chugging up and down it. 

Direct profitability hasn't got much to do with urban public transport these days. Sure that was the model that built much of it. But for the most part the government subsidies the hell out of it, in recognition that cheap, convenient and effective public transport networks are a social good and more to the point a huge economic driver. Its sort of like the road network, toll roads make sense for bits of it, but most is free access supported by government. 

[Ivanhoe]

29 minutes ago, Argus said:

If building from scratch, a 'guided busway' is usually a lot cheaper than any form of rail. Rail needs both infrastructure and rolling stock with the maintenance for both. A Busway amounts to an under engineered road with, even if built for the purpose, adapted normal buses chugging up and down it.

Depending on location and traffic volume, I dunno if "under engineered" is a good idea. The cost and geographic impact on cities makes any public transport critical infrastructure. Especially in cities which have any kind of manufacturing, workers gotta get to work. Especially in this 24/7/365 world. It seems like if you're going to go with fixed-route transit, IMHO it needs to run 24/7/365, so over-engineering seems like a better way to go. And have plenty of resources for clearing a broken-down bus from any hemmed-in roadways, ex. bridges and overpasses.

[sunday]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

If building from scratch, a 'guided busway' is usually a lot cheaper than any form of rail. Rail needs both infrastructure and rolling stock with the maintenance for both. A Busway amounts to an under engineered road with, even if built for the purpose, adapted normal buses chugging up and down it. 

Direct profitability hasn't got much to do with urban public transport these days. Sure that was the model that built much of it. But for the most part the government subsidies the hell out of it, in recognition that cheap, convenient and effective public transport networks are a social good and more to the point a huge economic driver. Its sort of like the road network, toll roads make sense for bits of it, but most is free access supported by government. 

Bring back the trolleybus!

Disagree on the underengineered bit. If the guided busway is as I think, you need special reinforcement of the pavement, as the buses will travel over the same precise part of the right of way day in and day out.

[Argus]

Gentlemen 'under engineered' is contextual and comparative. There's a few ways of doing them, but a busway or O-Bahn is essentially a heap of pre-cast concrete sections lined up on some form of foundation. I'm not saying they are poorly designed or weakly built. Just that compared to a normal road there is less engineering involved in putting one down, and I mean no more than that.

Edited May 7 by Argus

[Stuart Galbraith]

12 hours ago, rmgill said:

If you're building a housing estate then you PLAN for that and include the cost of the installation in the permitting process. If someone needs to add a pumping station to get sewage up and over the hill of a moor, then that gets included in the process for the permitting. That's WHY the councils have a permitting process in the first place. 

OR did you think it was all oriented around makings sure the roof color matched the local idea of quaint pastoral views? 

How'd they build the guided busway? 

Perhaps noone wants to build the tramway because it's not going to be profitable? 

How tragic then, that Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingham, and London have all re-introduced trams, and they proved to be profitable. How remarkable also that in the mad postwar dash to remove all trams from the UK, Blackpool retained theirs, and the remain profitable to this day?

Yes, you simply dont get how planning in the Uk works. A housing estate gets planning permission. It plugs into the local system. There doesnt seem to be any real calculation whether the system they are plugging into has capacity or not. Or if there is, it doesnt seem to take into calculation how well it works when you add things like rainwater into the mix. This being an exceptionally rainy country as everyone back to Roman times has noticed, but seemingly not the local planning office, or so I assume, judging by the terminal effects its having on UK rivers.

 

[rmgill]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

How tragic then, that Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingham, and London have all re-introduced trams, and they proved to be profitable. How remarkable also that in the mad postwar dash to remove all trams from the UK, Blackpool retained theirs, and the remain profitable to this day?

You should bring back horse drawn omnibuses too!

Profitability ties to the cost to fund it. Or you can just make it free like housing and tax the shit out of the working class. 

Where you find the balance is the question. 

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, you simply dont get how planning in the Uk works.

I begin to wonder if Brits don't get how planning in the UK works. 

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

A housing estate gets planning permission. It plugs into the local system. There doesnt seem to be any real calculation whether the system they are plugging into has capacity or not. Or if there is, it doesnt seem to take into calculation how well it works when you add things like rainwater into the mix.

Well, there's your problem. 

You're going to tie into a system with out examining how it's going to go against that systems capacity? Sounds like you have morons running your planning department.

 

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

This being an exceptionally rainy country as everyone back to Roman times has noticed, but seemingly not the local planning office, or so I assume, judging by the terminal effects its having on UK rivers.

So, it's not a new problem, but people haven't yet figured it out? 

Get all the B-Arker's out of the planning departments. Hire some contractors who have built things for decades and tie pay and bonuses to lack of capacity issues. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 minutes ago, rmgill said:

You should bring back horse drawn omnibuses too!

Profitability ties to the cost to fund it. Or you can just make it free like housing and tax the shit out of the working class. 

Where you find the balance is the question. 

I begin to wonder if Brits don't get how planning in the UK works. 

Well, there's your problem. 

You're going to tie into a system with out examining how it's going to go against that systems capacity? Sounds like you have morons running your planning department.

 

So, it's not a new problem, but people haven't yet figured it out? 

Get all the B-Arker's out of the planning departments. Hire some contractors who have built things for decades and tie pay and bonuses to lack of capacity issues. 

We cant. They are called Tories and Greens. We all die of unsterilized phones if those arseholes go spacewalking.

Profitability depends on investment. We lack investment. Ergo, either Government invests in transport, or we dont get it.

Reflect on this basic truth. The only rail transport you have in your country for people is Federal based. Private operation died. Same here, which is why we nationalized it. And despite knowing this for years, the Conservatives turned rail transport into a private operation, that is nonetheless still sustained by the public purse. This resulted in the inevitable result that the banks, whom own all the rolling stock, were charging top dollar for renting out ancient rolling stock. For example, in the 2000's, it cost the same for a rail operating company to rent a 1938 tube train (which was still in operation on the Isle of Wight till recently) as a new built DMU. You can see the incentive to not procure new rolling stock.

Its a similar problem with tram travel. Either Government pays a subsidy, or it doesnt exist. And because the mania is that mass transit must be by cars or bikes, everything in between gets strangled. Whcih means the city centres start getting fewer footfall, and wider trade dries up.

So, you either get serious about subsidy, and abandon the mania that everything must make a profit. Or you start funding councils to lower parking charges in inner city areas, so people can get to them in their cars. But as usual in Britain, we get the mania everything must make a profit, and we also get overcharging for car parking. So you can figure out whats happening to the footfall in our inner city areas.

I cud go arn and arn, as the saying goes.

[rmgill]

11 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

We cant. They are called Tories and Greens. We all die of unsterilized phones if those arseholes go spacewalking.

Profitability depends on investment. We lack investment. Ergo, either Government invests in transport, or we dont get it.

Why did Isambard Kingdom Brunel build the Great Western Railway? 

11 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Reflect on this basic truth. The only rail transport you have in your country for people is Federal based.

There are regional systems. Florida even has em. North Carolina subsidizes and pays specifically for AMTRAK service. California on the other hand is building a high speed rail system boon doggle that's going no-where so far. 

11 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Private operation died. Same here, which is why we nationalized it.

Why did it die? Examine that question. 

 

11 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And despite knowing this for years, the Conservatives turned rail transport into a private operation, that is nonetheless still sustained by the public purse. This resulted in the inevitable result that the banks, whom own all the rolling stock, were charging top dollar for renting out ancient rolling stock. For example, in the 2000's, it cost the same for a rail operating company to rent a 1938 tube train (which was still in operation on the Isle of Wight till recently) as a new built DMU. You can see the incentive to not procure new rolling stock.

You still seem to have this child like view of funding of things. You just spend money, call it investment, and it's all good. Again, look at Califorinia's High Speed Rail system. Surely your'e plugged into that mess right? 

And speaking of messes, why did Penn Central Fail? Why did PRR and New York Central have such a rough going after decades of success? 
 

11 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its a similar problem with tram travel. Either Government pays a subsidy, or it doesnt exist. And because the mania is that mass transit must be by cars or bikes, everything in between gets strangled. Whcih means the city centres start getting fewer footfall, and wider trade dries up.

The government pays for roads right? And then does it tax private infrastructure? Property tax? Tax on income/receipts/profits? 

Then it regulates the shit out of it. Then the system goes Tits up. And folks wonder why? 
 

11 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

So, you either get serious about subsidy, and abandon the mania that everything must make a profit.

You want the system to be self sustaining to some degree, OR you had better be sure that public investment is getting a good return on it. If its not, and if it's a boondoggle what then? 

 

Edited May 7 by rmgill

[Stuart Galbraith]

Look, let me give you the short version. This tells you all you need to know.

 

[rmgill]

Considering the state of the UK before the Conservatives came into power, I'm not sure you had boring but competent people previously. 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Nobody would suggest labour didnt make mistakes. But you know, the country still had a vaguely functioning water supply, we were still trading with Europe, we still had enough police to enforce law and order, the courts werent backed up, the Prisons werent overflowing. The NHS worked (people were complaining about receiving appointments too quickly!), and we still have 5 brigades we could deploy anywhere around the world, along with a Harrier force to back it up, along with 3 aircraft carriers.

And now, we dont. You can try and pretend we have had a step up in fiscal responsibility as compensation. Anyone that compares how Gordon Brown handled the financial crash, and compares to Liz Truss, whom single handedly created one, will probably disagree with you.

In short, stop believing the UK tabloid media. They have a message to sell you, and its increasingly divorced from reality, as Tass and Pravda were in the late Soviet Union.

Edited May 8 by Stuart Galbraith

[bojan]

State of Britain today can be for most part laid upon Blair government. It just took a while for chickens to come home. Tories were additionally (incredibly) incompetent, but root causes were in the late '90/early 2000 policies.

OTOH, I doubt that things would have been any different with parties reversed.

Edited May 8 by bojan

[Stuart Galbraith]

The state of the country today is the sum parts of,

Deindustrialisation. Which the Thatcher and and Major Governments did little if anything to forestall.

Playing in the sandpit too long. For which Blair and Cameron can be blamed.

Relying on financial services to carry the economy. For which Thatcher through Sunak can be blamed.

If you want a core reason for all these governments making pretty much the same decisions, its ideology. They were all wedded to the 'big bang' and 'trickledown' theory of economics. We would be the bankers of Europe, no need for all those smelly carbon based industries that kept the regions in jobs.  Yes, even New Labour believed this.

And this worked, whilst we had millions of gallons of north sea oil rolling in to keep the ship afloat. Now that has largely dried up, nobody has the honesty to say that it doesnt work, so we have continued with it. Then they introduced another tier of ideology. 'Everything will be great, if we seperate ourselves from the corpse of Europe!' We would be able to produce a 'singapore on Thames' which would be the motor to drive the economy of the 21st century. Which if anything, has just accelerated our economic decline in comparison with the rest of Europe. We have had a flatlining economy for 14 years. If that doesnt illustrate investing in other peoples economies is not a way to drive financial growth (particularly when China is flatlining) then I guess nothing does.

As my father one told me, in this country we once measured economic output by the price of steel. Today we measure it by the size of the housing market. If you cant see the problem with this, then you are probably wedded to the same ideological crap our political leadership has been in love with for the past 40 years.

I have no confidence Labour is going to fix it. The only momentary satisfation is when I see the political careers of the people whom dreamt up Brexit destroyed, because they deserve no less. But will it fix anything? No. Because exactly the same kind of politicians are coming down the Conveyor belt. And our decline will continue.

 

[JWB]

 

[JWB]

 

[JWB]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 minutes ago, JWB said:

 

Its simply never going to happen. That industry that built London is already arguably in decline. Its not more skyscrapers we want, its high speed digital broadband and investment in the regions.

Besides, why keep investing in a city that is sinking about half a centimetre a year, in an era when sea levels are going to arise? Atlantis on Thames is more like it.

[rmgill]

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Nobody would suggest labour didnt make mistakes. But you know, the country still had a vaguely functioning water supply,

If the problem now is aging victorian water systems then. Clearly they didn’t upgrade shit in the post war take care of the people push did they? 

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

we were still trading with Europe,

Still trading with Europe now. As is the US. 

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

we still had enough police to enforce law and order, the courts werent backed up, the Prisons werent overflowing. The NHS worked (people were complaining about receiving appointments too quickly!)

 

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

, and we still have 5 brigades we could deploy anywhere around the world, along with a Harrier force to back it up, along with 3 aircraft carriers.

 

Who wanted the army gone again? I ams sure we can find Labour was always in support of the MoD right? 

Also, what, an infantry company in soft caps can’t suffice? 

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And now, we dont. You can try and pretend we have had a step up in fiscal responsibility as compensation. Anyone that compares how Gordon Brown handled the financial crash, and compares to Liz Truss, whom single handedly created one, will probably disagree with you.

My assertion is you have a political class that has its heads up its 3rd point of contact. I deny that Labour was more competent, they were just coasting down from the inertia of the WWII period. 

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

In short, stop believing the UK tabloid media. They have a message to sell you, and its increasingly divorced from reality, as Tass and Pravda were in the late Soviet Union.

Oh. Perhaps I should listen to BBC? 
 

Frankly, I think hot takes from Jeremy and Caleb are more accurate and honest. 

[rmgill]

You and other socialist go on about trickle down economics. It tells me you do not understand economics . 
 

please explain how the economy actually should work? Would a 100% tax work? You’d have full government control of investment then right? 

[Ivanhoe]

3 hours ago, JWB said:

 

I vote no, unless all new skycrapers use the blueprints from The Gherkin.

Then again, what if all new skyscrapers were required to be mushroom-shaped? Lets turn Londinium into a Lewis Carroll theme park.

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

You and other socialist go on about trickle down economics. It tells me you do not understand economics . 
 

please explain how the economy actually should work? Would a 100% tax work? You’d have full government control of investment then right? 

Let's put it like this, I spent most of my childhood being told trickledown was great. I spent the 90s being told it worked. I've spent 25 years being lectured on this grate site that I'm a silly socialist for ever doubing it's wholesome beauty. Well, that's me told.

So despite its undoubted superiority, I live in a country where the cost of food keeps inflating, real wage rises keep shrinking, our city centres are dying, our roads are full of holes, and we seem unable to maintain law and order in the regions.

If it doesn't deliver economic growth, and that's 16 years now that it hasn't, it doesn't work. I know enough about economicsthat it doesn't work by people blowing smoke up the ass of failed policies, pretending they work. That's what Socialists are supposed to be doing, right?

Edited May 8 by Stuart Galbraith