E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

in short it's more a over supply of idiots in the UK rather than a shortage of fuel here or elsewhere. We do have a HGV shortage in the UK which we've seen as part of the lack of food on some shelves. Even in the graphic above we've got the highest number of vacancies. Add that to the media we have over here and it's a recipe for disaster

 

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

Remember when we were told food costs would drop and quality increase as a result of Brexit?

Well, things ain't looking good for 2022...

But don't worry, at least our fish are happy!

If you ignore the fact they're swimming in literal shite, anyway. Oh, and maybe don't plan a holiday to the Lake District any time soon if you... y',know, were going for the lakes.

 

It isn't, and can be traced back directly to the (Tory) privatisation of water and sewerage. However, we used to have the European Commission pushing back on it. Used to, of course, because that's not the case any more.

 

Whoopsie - dunno about the fish, but the oysters don't seem thrilled with the Sun-Lit Uplands. Err, Up...waters?

Also, I'd just like to highlight the closing paragraph here: "In comments to broadcasters, Mr Eustice signalled that the water sector would have five years to show progress on the matter, but that bills would have to increase to fund infrastructure improvements."

Now... that's literally what we were told privatisation would do: fund sewerage infrastructure improvements. They've had 30 years to do that. What have they done instead? Extracted billions in shareholder dividends. Literally just lined their pockets. And... here we are, looking to foot the bills that should have been already paid out of 30 years of profits.

I quote this briefing:

"Various arguments were used in favour of privatisation, including claims that: the private sector would be more efficient; private companies would be better able to finance the large investments needed; and privatisation would create competition.

"These claims were not supported by evidence from comparative studies or international reviews of the actual performance of public and private sector water companies.

"Within a few years of privatisation the privatised water companies were unpopular, with a bad reputation for excessive pricing, excessive profits, and poor performance. As summarised by the parliamentary committee: 'After privatisation profits started to soar in real terms' 'between 1990/91 and 1997/8 the pre-tax profits of the ten water and sewerage companies increased by 147% at a time when customers faced continual price rises. Water and sewerage prices rose respectively by 36% and 42% from 1988-1998 (in real terms) with the bulk of the increase occurring in the period up to 1994-1995. The industry faced a public outcry in relation to high levels of directors' pay and profits.'

"The universal experience of water privatisation in the UK was a sharp increase in the cost of water. On average, prices rose by over 50% in the first 4 years. The first 9 years produced an increase of 46% in real terms, adjusted for inflation

"OFWAT identifies three main components of customers' bills: operating costs, capital charges (for investment and renewals), and operating profits. A graphic presentation of these elements over the period since privatisation shows that operating expenditure as a proportion of bills has shrunk; the capital charges have risen; but operating profits, which have more than doubled, account for virtually the entire increase in customers' bills."

Furrfu.

 

A "BEWARE OF THE LEOPARD" sign offers at least some discouragement; we've replaced it with with a "COME ON IN THE WATER'S LOVELY SIGNED THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY" notice... (Well, until the U-turn, and assuming they actually deliver on said U-turn...)

 

The industry earns the fat cats nowt, 'cos it's not like banknotes rain from the sky; they're making money off me and thee.

Oh, aye, we had problems with sewage discharge in England before privatisation, too - but my point was that privatisation was supposed to be the solution. Thatcher literally told us that by privatising water and sewerage it'd get the investment it needed. Here we are, 30 years and dozens of profit-driven price hikes later, and we're being told that didn't happen - but if we pay even more then it'll definitely get fixed this time, honest.

Bah. Bah, I say. Claw the costs back from the shareholders. Better yet, admit the whole thing's a bust and bring it back under public ownership.

 

Taking those figures at face value, 'cos I really should be concentrating on actual work right now: there are, apparently, 56.5 million people in England (well, as of 2020, anyway - possibly a bit less now, I guess...). Let's say the average household has two people in it, ignoring businesses entirely. That's 28.25 million households. Times that by £30, you get £847.5 million. Times that by 30 years, and that's £24.43 billion with a buh.

Yeah, those are fag-packet maths - but my point is that why are we saying "hey, Scotland's sewerage is just as shite (no pun intended) as England's" when we in England have put nearly £25 billion more into it? Shouldn't it be £25 billion better than Scotland's?

In actuality, of course, the numbers are considerably higher - as per my link earlier. In fact, starting from 1991 - two years post-privatisation - shareholders of English water and sewerage firms have pulled out £57 billion in dividends. Fifty-seven billion-with-a-buh. And now we're told the system is under-funded and bills need to go up to fix the problem? How about no. How about you spend some of that £57 billion on fixing the problem instead, like we were told you would.