That, I stress, is a perfectly acceptable position to take. But it leaves one problem, which is that, however it is looked at, the supply of water within the Thames Water region is not operationally possible with acceptable levels of pollution within the framework that regulators permit, politicians will accept, and private capital will finance right now. That circle cannot be squared. There is literally no solution that reconciles those positions bar one, and that is a state subsidy for the massive investment required, with state ownership being necessary as a result.
But if it simply isn’t possible then perhaps the correct answer is not to insist upon those environmental standards that are not possible?
We are in a universe of scarce resources, we do have to make decisions about which and what we’ll tackle next. Perhaps having the Thames clean enough that Feargal can go trout fishing from Tower Bridge is a little lower down our list of desires than we’re willing to pay for?
You know, maybe? A subject to explore at least?
I live in the Thames Water area. Surely not all the water in it comes from the Thames, hence the trout fishing point is irrelevant?
There is literally no solution that reconciles those positions bar one, and that is a state subsidy for the massive investment required, with state ownership being necessary as a result.
Because, as we all know, if there’s something the private sector cannot do correctly, the public sector can not do it far better and for quite a bit more money.
The simple truth is that the state is incompetent in every regard, including the task of setting targets and standards for industries being placed into private hands. Although perhaps I ought to say British state as I understand some Nordic nations privatised water and were able to generate profits for the new owners and funds to build new reservoirs…
“Surely not all the water in it comes from the Thames, hence the trout fishing point is irrelevant?”
The trout fishing point is about the water that goes into the Thames (and other rivers within the Thames Water area).
A classic from the sour spite-filled Spud when discussing ‘the wealthy’ (which is now anyone who pays higher rate tax).
“Look, who cares if they pay half of all income tax? That’s because they’re overpaid. Let’s be blunt about it. They probably don’t earn the money that they’re paid. They’ve managed to secure it, maybe unfairly at cost to the rest of society.”
Even if you ignore the ‘private efficiency vs State efficiency’ issues, and assume that State ownership is at least as efficient as private it, it really doesn’t change anything, because the money to invest in all these improvements in sewage disposal etc has to come from somewhere. And that either means increased charges (the public) or increased taxation (the public), or a combination of both.
The whole rivers cleanliness issue should be used to provide a bit of an education moment for the public – ultimately there only is them, and they have to pay for everything. ‘The Government’ and ‘Big Business’ doesn’t actually exist, its all just a legal fiction front for actual people.
If the UK public wants something (in this case rivers they can swim in without bumping into the odd turd) then they (as in all of them) will have to pay for it. There is no one else.
Jim,
The difference is that if you tell them that they’ll assume the taxes but means other people paying more tax.
Andrew C,
I guess he isn’t referring to the civil service.
Spud’s talking about people earning the money they’re paid.?He’s on dangerous ground isn’t he?
Andrew C
Which post is that taken from? Clearly Murphy has found ‘Tiktok’ and seems to have taken to posting various bullshit there.
I particularly like the notion that ‘ They probably don’t earn the money that they’re paid. ”
I’d argue almost every cent he has earned in the last decade is unearned as its based on the promotion of spite and ignorance and an almost unrelenting evil.
Those of a nervous disposition may wish to exercise care clicking the link below. It’s on topic and work safe, but nauseating. However, it does afford the option of leaving comments about the presenter, under a Stasi name if you so wish.
https://youtu.be/NCthflI6GFA
The subject of one of my rants yesterday. The *very* *point* of a minimum wage is that those minimum wage recipients are not *earning* minimum wage, they’re being *PAID* minimum wage because they *EARN* /less/ than what they are being paid, and the law compels their employers to pay them *more* than that level.
It’s quite refreshing that Lord Spudcup has realised this. 😉
“The *very* *point* of a minimum wage is that those minimum wage recipients are not *earning* minimum wage, they’re being *PAID* minimum wage because they *EARN* /less/ than what they are being paid, and the law compels their employers to pay them *more* than that level.”
No really, in anything longer than the very short term. No employer is going to stay in business very long if he’s paying his employees more than they earn for him. In the very short term he can do that, while cash reserves last, but fairly soon he’s going to have to either raise his prices to make his workers more productive (in cash terms at least) or sack some of them and hope to get the same output using less of them, and/or using more productive automated processes.
Jgh,
Does Lord Spudcup wear shorts of a darkish hew by any chance?
@Andrew C
That is very revealing. According to this article top 5% is an income of £82k.
https://www.insurancehero.org.uk/blog/top-5-percent-income-uk.html
My guess is that Murphy is now below this level of income and as usual wants to tax anyone with more than him.
On the matter of trout fishing in the Thames. When I was a kid I used to go down to Wapping Steps by the River Police. You could have walked across the Thames in those days on the rubbish. What with that & the oil, the river was a fire hazzard. You fell in there, they took you to hospital & stomach pumped you.
In the naughties’ pal of mine owned the penthouse in what was the warehouse next to Wapping Steps with a ginormous terrace. I must have spent days up there & I used to walk the dog along when the tide was out. Well beach. It’s all brick & stone from about 500 years of London & before. That & millions of broken clay pipes & oyster shells. Girl I was with one day found a small ceramic pot. Perfect condition. Saxon. Took it back to New York with her. From the terrace you could see the shoals of fish passing up & down the river, feeding. Big ones as well. May have been bream. Even saw a seal one day. That river is the cleanest it’s been probably since Roman times. I’ve heard there’s crayfish in it. And crayfish a very pollution intolerant. The only other place in London I’ve seen them is the Hampstead pond people swim in, in the summer.
“That, I stress, is a perfectly acceptable position to take.”
If you need to use a sentence like that, any position taken is neither acceptable, nor reasonable.
Sometimes life is easy…
Yes, BiS, and it wasn’t just the Thames. Most major rivers in 60s Britain were biologically sterile, today those same rivers have salmon, and otters to eat the salmon.
Well BiS, one does assume that when the campaign to clean the rivers started, those pushing it decided that they couldn’t make it distilled pure, so making it clean enough so you just bumped into the odd turd was good enough. Of course once the whiners —-oops activists got some action they naturally pushed for more, more, more.