The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[blandy]

26 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Weren’t the water companies privatised so there would be a mechanism from much needed infrastructure works?

People are getting their share dividends but in 32 years the privatisation hasn’t raised the money promised to fix the infrastructure?

Surely it’s as simple as letting them know that they can next pay dividends the same year they discharge zero turds in to the rivers or the sea.

Life doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that.

Zackly. Much stronger regulation. Taxes on Water Co. profits, that kind of thing.

The cost of upgrading the sewage system will be ginormous, but the MPs voting down measures to make them start on that seems like (again) Tories protecting their donors and City mates at the expense of the country and environment. So it just carries on crumbling and discharging jobbies into the rivers.

[Genie]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Weren’t the water companies privatised so there would be a mechanism from much needed infrastructure works?

People are getting their share dividends but in 32 years the privatisation hasn’t raised the money promised to fix the infrastructure?

Surely it’s as simple as letting them know that they can next pay dividends the same year they discharge zero turds in to the rivers or the sea.

Life doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that.

 

My understanding is that they have to dump untreated waste into rivers and the sea because they can’t get enough of the chemicals to treat it first (not dumping in the waterways would lead to it backing up into peoples homes).

They can’t get the chemicals because of supply chain problems.

Supply chain problems are a lot to do with Brexit.

Brexit is a lot to do with the current government.

Will the government be able to dictate to these companies when they are dealing with the shit the government created (literally)?

[Davkaus]

Brexit may have exacerbated it (have we got any data showing the problem has been worse this year?), but we know that they've been doing it for years, and that Southern Water had already lost a courtcase for lying about it. Brexit may have added to the problem, but the fact is these companies have been happily poluting whenever they deem it's the most profitable way for them to work.

[Genie]

Carries tweet was from 2017, her Twitter has her as a conservationist. I bet meal time with her hubby is fun at the moment. 

[chrisp65]

Last year OFWAT asked privatised water companies not to pay dividends but to concentrate on upgrading infrastructure.

But OFWAT have no power over what dividends the water companies decide to pay, and so were duly ignored.

Between Yorkshire, Thames and Southern, those three alone paid out over £400 Million in dividends.

32 years this has been happening, billions upon billions paid in dividends and yes, some of that in to our pension pots.

But we have been sold a lie, again. Privatisation hasn’t funded improvements, Brexit is not the root cause.

 

[Davkaus]

Laughing at the farce you've highlighted there, not the post

OFWAT:

 

[HanoiVillan]

Speaking as someone who both receives a dividend and also likes to swim in the sea, personally I would happily trade the former for being able to do the latter without being covered in sewage.

[Genie]

37 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

But we have been sold a lie, again. Privatisation hasn’t funded improvements, Brexit is not the root cause.

Brexit is the reason why water companies are now allowed to legally dump shit into rivers and into beaches.

Its also part of the reason why the water companies need to do it due to supply chain issues with cleaning chemicals.

The other fact is also true that the system needs major investment if we’re to get to a place where the dumping isn’t required. Water companies say they don’t have the money to do it, but release hundreds of millions to shareholders each year.

[Xann]

Vote like witless pricks, get shit on.

Simple.

[Straggler]

The argument that it is too expensive not to tip raw human crap into the sea is hardly an encouraging one anyway.  It can't be a long-term solution, unless the plan is to physically join Britain and Europe with a bridge of poo, but if it is short term this should come with a plan to stop this dumping being a necessity.  I see in the spin they put out to combat all the bad press they keep banging on about the 3 billion to tackle pollution in rivers etc, but at the same time are saying they can't possibly legislate to ban this horrible discharge because it would cost 660 billion to fix everything up.  I assume at 660 Billion they are getting Dido Harding rates, from the hastily set up Gove & Mogg Industrial Shit Handlers ltd, via a no bid procurement process.

3 billion to solve a 660 billion problem is like signing Peter Dinklage to play in goal.  I mean it is something, but it's hardly dealing with the scale of the problem.

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, Straggler said:

The argument that it is too expensive not to tip raw human crap into the sea is hardly an encouraging one anyway.  It can't be a long-term solution, unless the plan is to physically join Britain and Europe with a bridge of poo, but if it is short term this should come with a plan to stop this dumping being a necessity.  I see in the spin they put out to combat all the bad press they keep banging on about the 3 billion to tackle pollution in rivers etc, but at the same time are saying they can't possibly legislate to ban this horrible discharge because it would cost 660 billion to fix everything up.  I assume at 660 Billion they are getting Dido Harding rates, from the hastily set up Gove & Mogg Industrial Shit Handlers ltd, via a no bid procurement process.

3 billion to solve a 660 billion problem is like signing Peter Dinklage to play in goal.  I mean it is something, but it's hardly dealing with the scale of the problem.

I assume without looking that the £660bn bill is basically to replace most sewage pipes in the country or something.

[NurembergVillan]

2 hours ago, Genie said:

Carries tweet was from 2017, her Twitter has her as a conservationist. I bet meal time with her hubby is fun at the moment. 

She's no more a conservationist than I am a spaceman.

She wouldn't have hooked up with that horrible word removed if she were anything more than a power-thirsty shithouse.

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, Straggler said:

The argument that it is too expensive not to tip raw human crap into the sea is hardly an encouraging one anyway.  It can't be a long-term solution, unless the plan is to physically join Britain and Europe with a bridge of poo, but if it is short term this should come with a plan to stop this dumping being a necessity.  I see in the spin they put out to combat all the bad press they keep banging on about the 3 billion to tackle pollution in rivers etc, but at the same time are saying they can't possibly legislate to ban this horrible discharge because it would cost 660 billion to fix everything up.  I assume at 660 Billion they are getting Dido Harding rates, from the hastily set up Gove & Mogg Industrial Shit Handlers ltd, via a no bid procurement process.

3 billion to solve a 660 billion problem is like signing Peter Dinklage to play in goal.  I mean it is something, but it's hardly dealing with the scale of the problem.

Whatever the actual cost, it looks like this proposed law change essentially incentivises the water companies to dump raw sewage into our water - they can either choose to treat stuff at whatever cost, to invest in new treatment works at whatever cost, or at no cost dump into the sea and rivers.

Whatever the cost is either the customers pay it, or the government (taxpayers) pay it. I mean @chrisp65pointed out 100s of millions in dividends, but if the actual cost is genuinely in the hundreds of billions, and they were banned from paying any dividends, it would still take decades to sort it out. So what do we do in the meantime?

I suspect it isn't actually billions, though and that the gov't could regulate to ban this practice, and force the water companies to sort their shit out.

[chrisp65]

The fact they are saying it would cost between 60 to 600 Billion to sort out suggests they haven’t even bothered giving it any serious coatings.

It cannot be too much to ask that we don’t dump our shit in the rivers, whilst at the same time, spending a fortune and wrecking the planet trying to come up with industrial fertilisers for all that food we throw away..

[HanoiVillan]

From an article about the government's partial u-turn (their new concession is 'organisations will be required by law to show a reduction in sewage overspills over the next five years' )

UK government U-turns on sewage after Tory MPs threaten rebellion

[...]

'An environment minister said there had been a tussle against the government, as No 10 and the Treasury believe that putting this duty on water companies, which would have to massively upgrade infrastructure, would be too expensive.

The minister said: “Basically we have been working for ages on how to put this stuff in law – a duty on the water companies – and it will be introduced when it goes back to the Commons. But what is infuriating is that even if the bill went through completely unchanged, it represents raising the bar beyond anything we have ever had before.

“So to have people like Lord Adonis imply that everything is currently fine and that we are coming along post-Brexit and legislating to allow crap to go into the rivers is not only wrong, it is a blatant lie – designed to whip people up into a frenzy of hate. But the government has been slow. And the move in the Commons will look like a concession when in fact we have been working on it for weeks.”'

from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/26/uk-government-u-turns-on-sewage-after-tory-mps-threaten-rebellion

Two issues with this:

1) They're still doing the whole crybullying thing where they declare that disagreeing with them in public is - checks notes - 'whip[ping] people up into a frenzy of hate'.

2) Why is the Guardian granting anonymity to a government minister - which could be any one of five people - to accuse a named individual of said hateful campaign? Journalists shouldn't do this, it's garbage. If ministers want to criticise people in public that's fine, then put a name to it. If not, don't print it, especially when they say nothing else of any interest.

Edited October 26, 2021 by HanoiVillan

[bickster]

[Xann]

Quote

 

MP Owen Paterson faces suspension for breaking lobbying rules
The committee revealed Paterson had failed to declare his interest and used his parliamentary office on at least 16 occasions for business meetings with his clients between October 2016 and February 2020, and sent two letters relating to his business interests on taxpayer-funded Commons-headed notepaper.

Paterson was also found to have committed “an egregious case of paid advocacy”, “repeatedly used his privileged position to benefit two companies for whom he was a paid consultant”, and brought the Commons into disrepute. It said: “No previous case of paid advocacy has seen so many breaches or such a clear pattern of behaviour in failing to separate private and public interests.”

 

Grauniad

Barely registers these days.

[Genie]

14 minutes ago, Xann said:

Grauniad

Barely registers these days.

I bet nothing comes of it. He’ll apologise and say he didn’t realise and that will be that.

Or they’ll conclude he didn’t actually break any rules.

Edited October 27, 2021 by Genie

[bickster]

28 minutes ago, Xann said:

Grauniad

Barely registers these days.

He insists he’s innocent too

[choffer]

How much did Rishi just announce for a new Liverpool waterfront Beatles museum?

Bicks will be delighted.