RugbyRebels

Perfect.

“Sure, I’m not meant to do this, but will there actually be any consequences?”

Definitely reads as "how busy are the good law society at the moment? Can they afford to bring another case? Or are they fully tied up with all our other illegal actions?"

We've seen realpolitik. I guess this is reallaw.

Nothing is illegal till it's been challenged, judged illegal in a court of law, and all possible appeals have failed.

How long before they introduce a statute of limitations for government actions? 6 months? 3 months? A week?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:We've seen realpolitik. I guess this is reallaw.

Nothing is illegal till it's been challenged, judged illegal in a court of law, and all possible appeals have failed.

How long before they introduce a statute of limitations for government actions? 6 months? 3 months? A week?

Let's be correct here - unlawful not illegal

Zhivago wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:We've seen realpolitik. I guess this is reallaw.

Nothing is illegal till it's been challenged, judged illegal in a court of law, and all possible appeals have failed.

How long before they introduce a statute of limitations for government actions? 6 months? 3 months? A week?

Let's be correct here - unlawful not illegal

True, I confused the two.

Unfortunately Braverman regularly confuses lawful and unlawful.

I feel confident that there's nothing to see here, no corruption at all, and no tory donor's / MPs with any links whatsoever to this company.
I'm also, utterly convinced that a 2-person team with expertise in education have all the skills required to oversee... the single most important national project currently going.
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornw ... nt-7407664

A company based in Cornwall has been given the job of overseeing a £70 billion contract to help deliver the country's transition to Net Zero - the target of completely negating the amount of greenhouse gases by reducing emissions. The Place Group - which is based at The Regent, Chapel Street, Penzance - has won the huge framework contract to "control, manage and deliver" the public sector transition to Net Zero.

...

The company has net assets of £344,417 under the directorship of Claire Delaney and Simon James.

...

Which Tyler wrote:I feel confident that there's nothing to see here, no corruption at all, and no tory donor's / MPs with any links whatsoever to this company.
I'm also, utterly convinced that a 2-person team with expertise in education have all the skills required to oversee... the single most important national project currently going.
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornw ... nt-7407664

A company based in Cornwall has been given the job of overseeing a £70 billion contract to help deliver the country's transition to Net Zero - the target of completely negating the amount of greenhouse gases by reducing emissions. The Place Group - which is based at The Regent, Chapel Street, Penzance - has won the huge framework contract to "control, manage and deliver" the public sector transition to Net Zero.

...

The company has net assets of £344,417 under the directorship of Claire Delaney and Simon James.

...

Oh FFS.

You know when you enter a prize draw and one of the T&Cs is that you have to acknowledge that you, or anyone in your immediate family, doesn't work for the company managing the draw? It should be the same in government contracts. Is you company owned by a MP or other senior government official, or do they have shares in it. If so, no contract.

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:I feel confident that there's nothing to see here, no corruption at all, and no tory donor's / MPs with any links whatsoever to this company.
I'm also, utterly convinced that a 2-person team with expertise in education have all the skills required to oversee... the single most important national project currently going.
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornw ... nt-7407664

A company based in Cornwall has been given the job of overseeing a £70 billion contract to help deliver the country's transition to Net Zero - the target of completely negating the amount of greenhouse gases by reducing emissions. The Place Group - which is based at The Regent, Chapel Street, Penzance - has won the huge framework contract to "control, manage and deliver" the public sector transition to Net Zero.

...

The company has net assets of £344,417 under the directorship of Claire Delaney and Simon James.

...

Oh FFS.

You know when you enter a prize draw and one of the T&Cs is that you have to acknowledge that you, or anyone in your immediate family, doesn't work for the company managing the draw? It should be the same in government contracts. Is you company owned by a MP or other senior government official, or do they have shares in it. If so, no contract.

That would be my first guess . . . hopefully journalists are searching for that link as we speak.

Back to the topic of nationalisation.

Our water supply. This really ought to be nationalised and properly funded. Reading articles like this is really shocking.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ish-rivers
Enforcement down from 800 per year to 17...

We should be taking care of our nature, and clearly because private money is involved, the profit motive encourages companies to cut costs by ofloading those costs onto the external environment, and by cutting the enforcement budget of environmental standards the regulations that should prevent this are not enforced. By reducing enforcement of environmental standards, competition of private companies find themselves competing who can get away with the most egregious actions.

Something should be done. Clearly nationalisation is only one solution out of many. But it seems like the problem is caused by private money, so the solution should be to remove private money.

Zhivago wrote:Back to the topic of nationalisation.

Our water supply. This really ought to be nationalised and properly funded. Reading articles like this is really shocking.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ish-rivers
Enforcement down from 800 per year to 17...

We should be taking care of our nature, and clearly because private money is involved, the profit motive encourages companies to cut costs by ofloading those costs onto the external environment, and by cutting the enforcement budget of environmental standards the regulations that should prevent this are not enforced. By reducing enforcement of environmental standards, competition of private companies find themselves competing who can get away with the most egregious actions.

Something should be done. Clearly nationalisation is only one solution out of many. But it seems like the problem is caused by private money, so the solution should be to remove private money.

Like many other quangos, the Environmental Agency was cash starved during austerity and hasn't recovered since. Any industry needs a regulator, even privatised ones, and if the regulator isnt up to the job for whatever reason, companies will take the piss.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Back to the topic of nationalisation.

Our water supply. This really ought to be nationalised and properly funded. Reading articles like this is really shocking.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ish-rivers
Enforcement down from 800 per year to 17...

We should be taking care of our nature, and clearly because private money is involved, the profit motive encourages companies to cut costs by ofloading those costs onto the external environment, and by cutting the enforcement budget of environmental standards the regulations that should prevent this are not enforced. By reducing enforcement of environmental standards, competition of private companies find themselves competing who can get away with the most egregious actions.

Something should be done. Clearly nationalisation is only one solution out of many. But it seems like the problem is caused by private money, so the solution should be to remove private money.

Like many other quangos, the Environmental Agency was cash starved during austerity and hasn't recovered since. Any industry needs a regulator, even privatised ones, and if the regulator isnt up to the job for whatever reason, companies will take the piss.

They're taking our piss and dumping it in our rivers!!

I don't see how water companies can compete agaisnt each other. The same water all goes through the same pipes. There isn't choice for the consumer, so why is it private?

Even if it's a not-for-profit like Dwr Cymru... what is the benefit over nationalisation?

The private water companies have eye-watering debt:equity ratios of 73% on average. They've been taking loans, cutting costs, and paying dividends overseas. At some point they'll collapse and the government will have to nationalise. Meanwhile the investors would have made off with the loot. No wonder there's a drought coming. The water companies presumably haven't been investing in new reservoirs etc (or in whatever appropriate infrastructure is required).

Oh and btw, I'm sure you guessed it, but the tap water in Netherlands is better than in the UK.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Back to the topic of nationalisation.

Our water supply. This really ought to be nationalised and properly funded. Reading articles like this is really shocking.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ish-rivers
Enforcement down from 800 per year to 17...

We should be taking care of our nature, and clearly because private money is involved, the profit motive encourages companies to cut costs by ofloading those costs onto the external environment, and by cutting the enforcement budget of environmental standards the regulations that should prevent this are not enforced. By reducing enforcement of environmental standards, competition of private companies find themselves competing who can get away with the most egregious actions.

Something should be done. Clearly nationalisation is only one solution out of many. But it seems like the problem is caused by private money, so the solution should be to remove private money.

Like many other quangos, the Environmental Agency was cash starved during austerity and hasn't recovered since. Any industry needs a regulator, even privatised ones, and if the regulator isnt up to the job for whatever reason, companies will take the piss.

They're taking our piss and dumping it in our rivers!!

I don't see how water companies can compete agaisnt each other. The same water all goes through the same pipes. There isn't choice for the consumer, so why is it private?

Even if it's a not-for-profit like Dwr Cymru... what is the benefit over nationalisation?

The private water companies have eye-watering debt:equity ratios of 73% on average. They've been taking loans, cutting costs, and paying dividends overseas. At some point they'll collapse and the government will have to nationalise. Meanwhile the investors would have made off with the loot. No wonder there's a drought coming. The water companies presumably haven't been investing in new reservoirs etc (or in whatever appropriate infrastructure is required).

Oh and btw, I'm sure you guessed it, but the tap water in Netherlands is better than in the UK.

If the regulator had some teeth they wouldn't take the piss.

As it happens, I do share your concerns over how you can privatise water when its all the same pipes. Its not a true competitive environment.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Like many other quangos, the Environmental Agency was cash starved during austerity and hasn't recovered since. Any industry needs a regulator, even privatised ones, and if the regulator isnt up to the job for whatever reason, companies will take the piss.

They're taking our piss and dumping it in our rivers!!

I don't see how water companies can compete agaisnt each other. The same water all goes through the same pipes. There isn't choice for the consumer, so why is it private?

Even if it's a not-for-profit like Dwr Cymru... what is the benefit over nationalisation?

The private water companies have eye-watering debt:equity ratios of 73% on average. They've been taking loans, cutting costs, and paying dividends overseas. At some point they'll collapse and the government will have to nationalise. Meanwhile the investors would have made off with the loot. No wonder there's a drought coming. The water companies presumably haven't been investing in new reservoirs etc (or in whatever appropriate infrastructure is required).

Oh and btw, I'm sure you guessed it, but the tap water in Netherlands is better than in the UK.

If the regulator had some teeth they wouldn't take the piss.

As it happens, I do share your concerns over how you can privatise water when its all the same pipes. Its not a true competitive environment.

You think competition is the most appropriate conduit for managing the integrity of natural resources? Jesus man, that mantra died with the Dodo. The world is literally sick of this supply side bullshit. It’s failed by every available metric for the last century. Fucking hell.

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
They're taking our piss and dumping it in our rivers!!

I don't see how water companies can compete agaisnt each other. The same water all goes through the same pipes. There isn't choice for the consumer, so why is it private?

Even if it's a not-for-profit like Dwr Cymru... what is the benefit over nationalisation?

The private water companies have eye-watering debt:equity ratios of 73% on average. They've been taking loans, cutting costs, and paying dividends overseas. At some point they'll collapse and the government will have to nationalise. Meanwhile the investors would have made off with the loot. No wonder there's a drought coming. The water companies presumably haven't been investing in new reservoirs etc (or in whatever appropriate infrastructure is required).

Oh and btw, I'm sure you guessed it, but the tap water in Netherlands is better than in the UK.

If the regulator had some teeth they wouldn't take the piss.

As it happens, I do share your concerns over how you can privatise water when its all the same pipes. Its not a true competitive environment.

You think competition is the most appropriate conduit for managing the integrity of natural resources? Jesus man, that mantra died with the Dodo. The world is literally sick of this supply side bullshit. It’s failed by every available metric for the last century. Fucking hell.

And nationalisation doesn't work that well either. The privatised companies complained vocally when they saw the state of the network when they took over from the state provider; literally no investment. The current system doesn't work, but thats not a reason to throw out privatisation altogether because its ideologically opposed to a way of thinking.

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
If the regulator had some teeth they wouldn't take the piss.

As it happens, I do share your concerns over how you can privatise water when its all the same pipes. Its not a true competitive environment.

You think competition is the most appropriate conduit for managing the integrity of natural resources? Jesus man, that mantra died with the Dodo. The world is literally sick of this supply side bullshit. It’s failed by every available metric for the last century. Fucking hell.

And nationalisation doesn't work that well either. The privatised companies complained vocally when they saw the state of the network when they took over from the state provider; literally no investment. The current system doesn't work, but thats not a reason to throw out privatisation altogether because its ideologically opposed to a way of thinking.

If an organization is given no reason to provide a better service, it won’t. Private water has no reason

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
If the regulator had some teeth they wouldn't take the piss.

As it happens, I do share your concerns over how you can privatise water when its all the same pipes. Its not a true competitive environment.

You think competition is the most appropriate conduit for managing the integrity of natural resources? Jesus man, that mantra died with the Dodo. The world is literally sick of this supply side bullshit. It’s failed by every available metric for the last century. Fucking hell.

And nationalisation doesn't work that well either. The privatised companies complained vocally when they saw the state of the network when they took over from the state provider; literally no investment. The current system doesn't work, but thats not a reason to throw out privatisation altogether because its ideologically opposed to a way of thinking.

The difference is that, if a nationalised utility has no investment, then that is easily fixed. A privatised utility that has no investment and no real incentive to invest? The only leverage is government bribery and in which case, they may as well have just invested the money and got 100% use out of it.

What, in your opinion, makes the private sector more likely than nationalised utilities to invest in infrastructure, when there's no meaningful choice for the consumer?

Puja

Let’s define “works well “ in terms of the integrity of the natural resource. Then we can compare appropriate metrics. If the resource is poisoned, is your supply side mantra going to fix that? It’s fucking rhetorical at this point because we both know it won’t. How many decades of hard data do you need to acknowledge this blindingly obvious fact? Fucking hell. It’s just a ridiculous conversation, debating the very definition of stupidity at the expense of time, which is the commodity in shortest supply. Just fuck.

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
If the regulator had some teeth they wouldn't take the piss.

As it happens, I do share your concerns over how you can privatise water when its all the same pipes. Its not a true competitive environment.

You think competition is the most appropriate conduit for managing the integrity of natural resources? Jesus man, that mantra died with the Dodo. The world is literally sick of this supply side bullshit. It’s failed by every available metric for the last century. Fucking hell.

And nationalisation doesn't work that well either. The privatised companies complained vocally when they saw the state of the network when they took over from the state provider; literally no investment. The current system doesn't work, but thats not a reason to throw out privatisation altogether because its ideologically opposed to a way of thinking.

Seems to be working fine for Scotland and Northern Ireland. And the rest of Europe.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ish-rivers?

Sewage sleuths: the men who revealed the slow, dirty death of Welsh and English rivers

A tide of effluent, broken laws and ruthless cuts is devastating the nations’ waterways. An academic and a detective have dredged up the truth of how it was allowed to happen – but will anything be done?

...

ARTICLE CONTINUES

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Like many other quangos, the Environmental Agency was cash starved during austerity and hasn't recovered since. Any industry needs a regulator, even privatised ones, and if the regulator isnt up to the job for whatever reason, companies will take the piss.

They're taking our piss and dumping it in our rivers!!

I don't see how water companies can compete agaisnt each other. The same water all goes through the same pipes. There isn't choice for the consumer, so why is it private?

Even if it's a not-for-profit like Dwr Cymru... what is the benefit over nationalisation?

The private water companies have eye-watering debt:equity ratios of 73% on average. They've been taking loans, cutting costs, and paying dividends overseas. At some point they'll collapse and the government will have to nationalise. Meanwhile the investors would have made off with the loot. No wonder there's a drought coming. The water companies presumably haven't been investing in new reservoirs etc (or in whatever appropriate infrastructure is required).

Oh and btw, I'm sure you guessed it, but the tap water in Netherlands is better than in the UK.

If the regulator had some teeth they wouldn't take the piss.

As it happens, I do share your concerns over how you can privatise water when its all the same pipes. Its not a true competitive environment.

That will never happen with a government that listens to lobbyists for privatised water companies.

So get a better government or end lobbying or nationalise the industry.

Preferably all three.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
They're taking our piss and dumping it in our rivers!!

I don't see how water companies can compete agaisnt each other. The same water all goes through the same pipes. There isn't choice for the consumer, so why is it private?

Even if it's a not-for-profit like Dwr Cymru... what is the benefit over nationalisation?

The private water companies have eye-watering debt:equity ratios of 73% on average. They've been taking loans, cutting costs, and paying dividends overseas. At some point they'll collapse and the government will have to nationalise. Meanwhile the investors would have made off with the loot. No wonder there's a drought coming. The water companies presumably haven't been investing in new reservoirs etc (or in whatever appropriate infrastructure is required).

Oh and btw, I'm sure you guessed it, but the tap water in Netherlands is better than in the UK.

If the regulator had some teeth they wouldn't take the piss.

As it happens, I do share your concerns over how you can privatise water when its all the same pipes. Its not a true competitive environment.

That will never happen with a government that listens to lobbyists for privatised water companies.

So get a better government or end lobbying or nationalise the industry.

Preferably all three.

I think austerity was the biggest culprit given that the regulator used to take companies to court and now don't. Other regulators are far less effective and probably because of politics. for the EA it feels more like a financial thing.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: If the regulator had some teeth they wouldn't take the piss.

As it happens, I do share your concerns over how you can privatise water when its all the same pipes. Its not a true competitive environment.

That will never happen with a government that listens to lobbyists for privatised water companies.

So get a better government or end lobbying or nationalise the industry.

Preferably all three.

I think austerity was the biggest culprit given that the regulator used to take companies to court and now don't. Other regulators are far less effective and probably because of politics. for the EA it feels more like a financial thing.

It doesn't work. The companies would just provision for a fine and pass the cost onto their customers.

Zhivago wrote:It doesn't work. The companies would just provision for a fine and pass the cost onto their customers.

Which has been the case for donkeys years.

The cost of the fine is less than the cost of the maintenance, and you rarely have to pay the fine anyway.
The odd fine is just baked in as the cost of doing business, and way, WAY less than the cost of doing the work.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: If the regulator had some teeth they wouldn't take the piss.

As it happens, I do share your concerns over how you can privatise water when its all the same pipes. Its not a true competitive environment.

That will never happen with a government that listens to lobbyists for privatised water companies.

So get a better government or end lobbying or nationalise the industry.

Preferably all three.

I think austerity was the biggest culprit given that the regulator used to take companies to court and now don't. Other regulators are far less effective and probably because of politics. for the EA it feels more like a financial thing.

Austerity + hatred of regulations + too cosy with lobbyists/business leaders (possibly donors too?)

The other thing with privatised utilities is that the government has given away one of its major economic levers. At the moment, we've got a massive cost of living crisis and ridiculous inflation and the only tools that the government has to deal with it are all by squashing the demand - fighting wage/benefit/pension rises and raising interest rates, none of which are particularly great for getting us out of a recession (and that's not thinking about the fact that fighting payrises is the government effectively saying that the poor starving is an acceptable solution to curb inflation damaging the value of capital).

If gas, electric, water, and trains were in public hands, then they'd have another tool - suppressing price rises, or even instituting price drops. It'd be costly, but probably less costly than the hit to growth that will come from suppressing demand.

Puja