You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Green spend decades being told they're single issue cranks. New leader outlines an expansive policy platform that goes far beyond environmental issues. Peanut gallery says he doesn't say enough about environmental issues.
I don't agree with him but what do people want ffs?
If you can't convince people who are struggling that the reason they are poor is because rich people are stealing their money and not because of windmills and brown people then you might as well give up.
most people only think they can't afford an EV. They need someone to do the sums for them.
These poor people are too stupid to understand they only think they're too poor to afford an electric car?
I suggest you look at the cost of buying and running and second-hand Leaf and running it over say five years and compare that with any ICE politecameraaction. Second-hand EVs are cheap, one of the arguments I've seen against them is rapid depreciation 😉 have very low running costs and tend not to break wet belts or whatever at 30 000miles
have very low running costs
Unless you dont have the ability to charge at home like, well, a large part of the UK population at which point it becomes somewhat of a gamble which is cheaper especially when you add the inconvenience factor.
So there's a policy for Zack to make public - abundant nationalised charge infrastructure selling cheap electricity from nationalised wind farms. 🙂 Not that I expect to hear anything of the sort, he wants us all to take the bus and then you're looking a proper inconvenience factor (I'm probably in the top 1% of StWers in terms of annual mileage in busses). The biggest green party vote loser is suggesting people not use their car. The car is here to stay till the end of humanity, EVs produce about five times less CO2 over their life time than ICEs (French electricity mix) thats quite a gain and with huge public health benefits.
I would like to think any Green party would make clear that the main goal should be to move as large a percentage of the population as possible away from needing to own any kind of car. Consumption needs to be reduced in society as a whole. Changing the type of overconsumption is pointless posturing.
For years the Greens have focused on policies that help over-consuming middle class people feel better about their over-consumption. The fascination with electric cars illustrates that point perfectly. Electric cars are still cars and still very bad.
Persuading society as a whole to consume less is an easier sell if people don't feel like they are struggling. That is why an actual Green policy is to ensure that people at the very least have what they need to survive.
Electric cars are still cars and still very bad.
True but tell that to the vast majority of the voting population and you just lost their vote.
Much as the older generation love to hark back to the 50s when many didn't have a car they don't want to go back there. Green policies need to be socially workable and attractive without dumping many people into poverty which is where consuming less leads when consumption drops. Shutting down the economy is really green as the Covid lockdowns demonstrated. Green growth is not an oxymoron: insulating homes, using heat pumps rather than gas central heating, investing in rail whilst making flying unattractively expensive, retrofitting solar, EV vehicle and infrastructure, more labour intensive less chemical dependant agriculture... can all fuel the economy whilst reducing emissions.
Well then we fundamentally disagree because I think Green growth is an oxymoron.
Greener growth, sure. But then every party is promising greener growth.
But I don't think persuading society that we need to consume less is a non-starter. However, telling people who are choosing between heating and eating to consume less is a terrible idea. But then so is telling them to buy an electric car.
But then so is telling them to buy an electric car.
If they really need a car, and some people do, it was part of my contractual obligations in a UK job for example, then a bangernomics Leaf is a better choice than ICE for someone on a limited budget.
If they really need a car, and some people do, it was part of my contractual obligations in a UK job for example, then a bangernomics Leaf is a better choice than ICE for someone on a limited budget.
I'm sure it is. But in the grand scheme of things it will do nothing for the environment.
Norway has gone almost 100% electric and all the infrastructure needed for cars is still there. All the tarmac is still being laid. If anything there is even more tarmac being laid because electric cars weigh more so they chew up roads more. People can't use their streets because on street parking is still needed everywhere. People still aren't cycling in significant numbers because if anything people are using their cars even more because all these electric cars are so green. Busses are still too expensive and don't go often enough/to the right places so people use their green cars instead.
But middle class Norwegians still gather for a circlejerk over how green they all are and how great they are for going 100% electric. All while continuing to over-consume (only over-consuming 'green' products, obviously) and while producing more oil and gas per capita than Saudi Arabia.
Unless you dont have the ability to charge at home
Electric car enthusiasts always seem to forget this convenvient fact don't they? The sort of people who can only afford a 'bangernomic Leaf' are also the same people who don't have offroad parking or a spare £1k (or thereabouts) to install a 7.4kw charger at home. Until the govt/car industry grasps this fact electric cars will continue to be a luxury for the middle class. In fact the car industry obviously already knows this, that's why the electric car market is mainly targeted at the demographic who can afford to spend >£20k on a car.
Electric cars are made to save the car industry not the planet. the only answer is to stop using all that energy to move people around
Yep, we need massive investment in cheap slow chargers close to where people live. Up to now it's not been an issue but now more affordable 2nd hand EVs have hit the market the infrastructure is lacking. Fast chargers don't cut it at 70p to 80p a kW when home charging is 7p. Unfortunately the whole sector is geared towards the habits of those who charge at home most of the time.
. Fast chargers don't cut it at 70p to 80p a kW when home charging is 7p. Unfortunately the whole sector is geared towards the habits of those who charge at home most of the time.
And then you read smug ****s stating that their car is free to use due to the electricity from solar roof panels that is stored in battery systems that ultimately charge their £60k ev’s.
Yep, we need massive investment in cheap slow chargers close to where people live. Up to now it's not been an issue but now more affordable 2nd hand EVs have hit the market the infrastructure is lacking. Fast chargers don't cut it at 70p to 80p a kW when home charging is 7p. Unfortunately the whole sector is geared towards the habits of those who charge at home most of the time.
Agree with all of this.
But as range gets bigger expensive charging on the road becomes less of a problem in lots of ways - but we still need big investment. Without question.
The market is making an arse as usual out of competition.
The recent government grant is making a bit of difference but let's face it's a bung to companies.
(The whole economy is set up to help the middle class let's be honest.)
The whole economy is set up to help the middle class let's be honest.
In this case it's not deliberate, it's just the way it is. To access cheap tariffs you need to charge at home. To charge at home you need to pay for the charger and have some where, probably off road, to charge. That clearly favours people with money but it's not deliberate. That's driven by investors and the technology.
Also the focus is on rapid charging out and about, that's where the current pay to charge market is, this is because people generally wanting to charge on the go want a fast top up, not a daily charge. Fast chargers are massively expensive to buy and install. The pricing reflects that up front investment. Drivers suck up the cost for convenience of charging quickly to get home.
The government should have been prepping the market ages ago for the uptake in EVs by people who can't charge at home, instead they've pulled subsidies and made no effort to incentivise suppliers upfront. Slow, cheaper charging will come but's a chicken and egg, until there are enough users buying EVs who can't charge at home no one will invest in cheap charging. Until there's abundant cheap charging away from home people who can't charge at home won't be buying second hand EVs.
And then you read smug ****s stating that their car is free to use due to the electricity from solar roof panels that is stored in battery systems that ultimately charge their £60k ev’s.
Not really sure what your point is here, people with money should drive ICE vehicles? Ideally the government should be supporting solar and battery rollouts for everyone, but again they pulled the subsidies. And again practicalities kick in, to have solar panels you need to have rights over your roof, which favours home owners, who are generally wealthier. It's the wealthy that are paying for these technologies out of their own pockets that are creating the market, bit like EVs, if people hadn't bought / leased expensive EVs 4 years ago they wouldn't be coming onto the second hand market at more affordable prices.
Aim your disdain at the government (any government) who have as usual completely failed to plan more than 5 minutes ahead.
Not really sure what your point is here, people with money should drive ICE vehicles?
No there's no problem with the middle class/well-off driving electric cars, just don't lecture those who can't afford them about the ICE cars they need to drive. Ed might want to take that on board next time he goes on about 'bangernomics Leafs'.
reworking our society so its not car dependent would do far more for both co2 emissions and the poorest
reworking our society so its not car dependent would do far more for both co2 emissions and the poorest
Yes but in the meantime while we create ecological communist utopia, working people still need to get to work so they can make money to feed and house themselves. I for one am glad Zack Polanski seems to understand this.
Its you that completely fails to understand what a green party should be, what policies are core values and who is giving cover to the planet killers.
If we carry on as we are the planet will become largely uninhabitable in your childrens lifetimes. Its no use fiddling around the edges. It needs radical and co ordinated action
It needs radical and co ordinated action
I don't disagree, but telling working people they're not allowed to drive isn't going to create the conditions where radical action is possible. Eco-authoritarianism/fascism is not a viable solution.
Surely it's not that untidy?
We've got to turn things around at the social justice / economic side of things first.
Green still greens at the core but you've got to improve people's livelihoods primarily or they won't buy into the environmental changes.
Everything is a direction - EVs are a direction not the end result. Just getting EVs past Reform/Status-quo types is hard enough.
Look at how regressive Labour have been compared to how progressive ZP is aiming. It's a magnitude of difference.
You get people on side first - hence is visit to Clacton.
He's doing the right thing. My only concern currently is the massive amount of info he's got to keep stored up to deal with everything. He does a decent job at dropping MMT in plain english and tackling lazy financial journalism but keeping the knowledge and technical info going whilst sticking it to your opponent requires lots of coordination and push-back.
Just hope he doesn't burn out.
Surely his approach makes a whole load of sense.
We've got to turn things around at the social justice / economic side of things first. He's big on changing narratives and this is where Labour have been appalling.
Green still greens at the core but you've got to improve people's livelihoods primarily or they won't buy into the environmental changes required.
Everything is a direction - EVs are a direction not the end result. Just getting EVs past Reform/Status-quo types is hard enough.
Look at how regressive Labour have been compared to how progressive ZP is aiming. It's a magnitude of difference.
You get people on side first - hence his visit to Clacton.
He's doing the right thing. My only concern currently is the massive amount of info he's got to keep stored up to deal with everything. He does a decent job at dropping MMT in plain english and tackling lazy financial journalism but keeping the knowledge and technical info going whilst sticking it to your opponent requires lots of coordination and push-back.
Just hope he doesn't burn out.
It needs radical and co ordinated action
I don't disagree, but telling working people they're not allowed to drive isn't going to create the conditions where radical action is possible. Eco-authoritarianism/fascism is not a viable solution.
And who is suggesting that?
I am merely stating that as is obvious you do not understand green politics. From what I have seen Polanski is taking the party in very much the wrong direction with the same pretense and lies as the other parties.
Its the very poorest that would benefit most from real green policies
Surely his approach makes a whole load of sense.
We've got to turn things around at the social justice / economic side of things first.
Nope - social justice comes from the green measures. Again a complete lack of understanding of green politics. the poorer you are the more you benefit from real green policies.
Polanski is taking them to obscurity by heading in the wrong direction
I am merely stating that as is obvious you do not understand green politics.
TJ your description of green politics amounts to repeating ad infinitum that we need radical structural reform to the economy and societal behaviours but you never seem to provide any answers as to how we do that. Yes, we know we need radical reform of just about everything that exists in today's economy and society, but how? Party politics hasn't worked for obvious reasons. Leaving it to the market hasn't worked. Scaring everyone to death with predictions of the apocalypse hasn't worked. Persuading people to take personal action hasn't worked. So what next?
Nope - social justice comes from the green measures. Again a complete lack of understanding of green politics. the poorer you are the more you benefit from real green policies.
Social justice is about looking after your people.
Being green is part of that.
Fix the foundations first.
The poorer you are the more you benefit from money.
Is it just me or is Polanski trying just a bit too hard at the green party conference? The performative anger isn't really necessary, the subject material speaks for itself.
I'm very impressed how much stuff he's actually getting up to - it's almost as if there's 3 of him in several places at once.
Yeah, he’s being doing lots of good appearances, here there and everywhere. I’ve been impressed with how he’s handled questions from journalists. He’s come across as honest and clear thinking. I honestly can’t think of a TV or radio appearance where he’s tripped up at all. His conference speech was much more what I feared he’d be like before he was elected to be leader… a big turn off for many people I’m sure, the fake cult leader energy isn’t for me that’s for sure.
…good job again. I felt uncomfortable about him turning so fast on the government when asked about the attack at Heaton Park, but that might be personal as my daughter works in a nearby school, so political pot shots seem too soon to me.
political pot shots seem too soon to me.
I don’t think it was a political pot shot - more a statement of the fundamental importance of the right to protest. When that is abridged we end up in a dictatorship. For an example observe the end of US democracy.
For political opportunism look to the following interview with the ghastly Mirvis - apologist for the sadism of “our boys” the IDF - parachuting in and holding forth on October 7 while demanding banning of protest.
I think there's an urgency to him and he knows he's got to cover so much ground with a massive amount of energy and conviction.
The media didn't know what to do with him today when can layer up a point like this:
https://twitter.com/BeckettUnite/status/1974026266375328171?t=W-eQLrOB5ClXe6oNB63PEg&s=19
Media wants everything to be black and white.
His hit rate is very high.
> deleted … nothing controversial, just derailing <
Shabana Mahmood is in many ways every bit as offensive as Suella Braverman. To claim that protests against an ongoing genocide were, quote, "un-British" is exactly the sort of shite that Suella Braverman spewed out when she was Home Secretary.
Good on Polanski for reminding everyone that he speaks as someone who is very proud of being Jewish and sees himself as part of the Jewish community.
Next Saturday there will be a massive national demonstration in support of Palestinians who are currently being murdered and starved by a criminal regime. As usual there will be a huge Jewish turnout with many marching behind the banners of Jewish organisations in the Jewish Bloc... un-British my arse.
For political opportunism look to the following interview with the ghastly Mirvis - apologist for the sadism of “our boys” the IDF - parachuting in and holding forth on October 7 while demanding banning of protest.
I listened to his interview on the today programme/R4 this morning @ 7.43am, it set my bile glands churning with his rhetoric, funnily enough he was followed by Zack at 7.52am which settled them back down
Not actually directly related to Zack Polanski but as a Jewish person from Manchester who cares deeply about the Palestinian cause and who has publicly expressed revulsion towards those who have attempted to exploit this recent horrific tragedy for their own agendas, I am sure that Polanski would 100% support this collective statement by the Jewish Bloc for Palestine...
Jewish Bloc statement on the Manchester attack
A collective statement from the Jewish Bloc for Palestine, 3rd October 2025
The Jewish Bloc is horrified and sickened by the murderous attack on the Manchester synagogue yesterday. We send our condolences and love to the families of the victims and all members of the congregation. Nobody should lose their life for where or when they choose to pray.
We were devastated by the news that the Greater Manchester Police operation was responsible for the death of one congregation member and the injury of others, as well as the death of the attacker. It is appalling that shul goers who called the police for help ended up dead at their hands. We stand in solidarity with the families of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz.
In the immediate aftermath of an attack like this we mourn the victims and offer our support to a community reeling in shock, whether the attack be at a synagogue, school, mosque or nightclub. We are deeply moved by the widespread expressions of sympathy and solidarity we have received from our comrades and friends in the Palestine solidarity movement and a range of Muslim organisations, and are grateful for the support they have offered.
We were shocked when, less than 24 hours after the attack, a relatively new Home Secretary went onto the airwaves to weaponise the fear and grief of our community by resurrecting a slur: that those protesting for Palestine represent a danger to Jews. She is cynically exploiting this tragic event to fulfil a long-standing ambition of successive British Governments: to justify a ban on the mass protests against Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
We are distressed that some of our communal leaders, including the Chief Rabbi of the United Synagogue, have also tried to exploit our grief and fear in order to suppress and silence those organising for Palestine.
Antisemitism, Islamophobia, and violent bigotry are on the rise. We will not speculate on the motives of the attacker but we all recognise and condemn the increase in antisemitic conspiracy theories across social media, as well as the dog-whistle phrases now appearing in the speeches of mainstream politicians.
We are a diverse group of British Jews. Some are secular and some were in synagogues yesterday. Many have links to families and friends who will have attended Heaton Park synagogue yesterday. We will be marching again next Saturday, and will continue to take to the streets until we see an end to this genocide and until Palestine is free. We will continue to strengthen our links of solidarity and mutual support with Muslims and other communities targeted by racism. An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy50vklw4vdo
I like this :
PH: Southern Water or Thames Water are huge companies and would cost millions to buy. Are you prepared to nationalise them using taxpayers' money?
ZP: I don't accept it would take millions to buy at all because those water companies aren't worth anything.
PH: You'd been taking on all those liabilities - all those leaky pipes.
ZP: Well, I think you could backdate it. So when we sold off Thames Water, for instance, we sold it with zero pounds debt. It now has £70bn debt.
It's not like nationalisation would be an experiment, the experiment has been privatisation. And privatisation under every single measure has utterly failed.
And should anyone think that Polanski might be out of step with what voters want, remember the old centrist mantra left-wing policies is not what voters want?
"the latest YouGov poll 82% of the British public said that we should bring our water into public ownership"
82% support for any sort of policy is really quite remarkable.
What is also quite remarkable is that a supposedly "left-wing" party has ruled out the policy citing the usual right-wing excuse that it would be too expensive.
£70bn debt? Can that figure be correct??
I think it's more like £20bn. Doesn't alter the validity of the point he's making.
Yeah, I think the £70bn is the total debt for the whole water industry and in the case of Thames Water it's approx £20bn.
He was presumably giving a face-to-face interview and having questions fired at him and his memory retrieved the total debt for the privatised industry rather than just for Thames Water.
That's an interesting position with regard to debt-loading companies. If we were to take back water-industry at zero public purchase price because of the debt loading, it may make other providers of utilities sort themselves out.
Sustainable companies are in the national interest, private equity tends not to be.
Not that it’s my business what happens across the border, but I’m all for bringing Water Companies into public ownership but before that happens you need to work out what operating model you want, what you want to achieve in terms of improvements over the current situation (that sounds simple but it wouldn’t be) and how you are going to raise revenue. If you don’t do that, you will gain little.
Accepting that the spill data is much more comprehensive in England and Wales, looking at what data does exist, I am not sure there is any evidence that the number of storm spills in Scotland is any lower than in England for comparable locations.
People are kicking off about how the water companies are performing now, but the debate is often ill informed and emotional and what people are asking for now is not necessarily what the companies were set up to provide.
Not that it’s my business what happens across the border, but I’m all for bringing Water Companies into public ownership but before that happens you need to work out what operating model you want, what you want to achieve in terms of improvements over the current situation (that sounds simple but it wouldn’t be) and how you are going to raise revenue. If you don’t do that, you will gain little.
First thing that needs to be said is why do we need a model that adds layer of a inefficiency with profit for a public service? Money added to the top for the customer to pay is simply poor value for everyone apart from the shareholders.
Natural monopoly and all that - explain why the current position is such?
It's very simple - you can pay - or the government can. Given our bills are just flying up i think the benefits of privatisation need laying out (good luck with that) as opposed to the correct position of being owned and controlled by the state for the benefit of the majority.
The revenue is automatically created by the government for us - whereas it's the exact opposite when owned by share holders. We have to pay from diminishing private funds.
It's a classic case of a back to front model that simply doesn't work.
As for the management - currently I don't care as this is solvable after we've put this asset back where it should be. There will always be management no matter the structure and this pulls from the same pool of labour from the private sector.
The only difference is profit for share-holders and investment constraints that brings.
The cost to do this utterly irrelevant - the valuation of around 100bn is fiction. I mean at some point they will probably fail anyway.
There are many ways around the cost issue - but don't forgot Labour have messed up with fiscal rules limiting spending. Greens would probably not have this nonsense.
We get the asset too. It's not money for nothing.
Affordable - doable - logical; only keeping the status quo in check is the reason it's still here.
(Also paying dividends when you are loss making is a ridiculous joke.) They're all in debt just to exist.
It makes zero sense on any level.
Agreed. Stop asking people to present and justify a new operating model, explain why, when there is no market and no competition, we should keep the privately owned mess we have? Nationalise one failing company, find a new model that works, roll that out across England & Wales region by region.
There are good arguments for privatisation but they depend on a competent government and regulator. In theory they should provide a more efficient service, profit being the motivator. That only works though if the contracts are well constructed and enforced. The alternative is public ownership which should in theory provide better services without the profit margin. In reality we had grossly inefficient public services and no capital invest. The irony of course is both models fail because governments are rubbish at managing anything.
Well, if both systems require government competence and control… yet one also gives much of that control to a single private body (in their region) that has a duty to outside people to give away money that could be invested in improvements…
I think the water utilities should be publicly owned. They should never have been privatised. But that’s not my point.
If you nationalise them you will have to get it right, getting right will not be easy and it will not provide immediate improvement. Regardless of the operating model, improvements will be expensive and they will require action well beyond the public sewer.
Even if you do get it right and invest money the improvements will take quite a while to arrive.
So it’s easy to promise to do all this for political gain but when you do do it and people don’t get the results they want, all that political capital will evaporate.
The main problem as I see it is inequality and austerity. Reduce inequality and stop the pointless austerity and you can stop worrying about a load of issues.
Which is why you get one region “right” (I’d settle for “better” personally) and then roll it out elsewhere. It spreads the “costs” of nationalisation over time as well (although I suspect those costs can be far lower than some of the figures being suggested by people who prefer the private ownership model).
As for political capital… I suspect that if the (failed) Thames Water was nationalised next year, within 10 years people in all other regions would be complaining of a South East bias and asking why water in their region is not yet publicly owned.
In theory they should provide a more efficient service, profit being the motivator.
Profit as a motivator only works in a competitive environment. If you own a monopoly then profit is simply a license to extract money from the business while the service it provides declines. There isn't a single justification for privatisation of a monopoly industry.
In theory they should provide a more efficient service, profit being the motivator
Motivator for what?
To provide more expensive bills? Companies leveraged on debt? Poor service?
Profit on an essential monopolistic service is an inefficiency by definition because you as a customer have to pay to service their a) profit b) their dividends c) their mistakes d) their debt interest.
And you can't leave.
That's less efficient .
Competition on essential services doesn't work even where there's no monopoly.
Even the energy market there's actually little choice between providers - all charging similar amounts with tiny differences where you have to be the efficient party to make your choices not them!
The efficiency for profit motivation died years ago and is a mythical nonsense in public services.
I'd go further, even if you have a split where you have NHS dentists and private dentists - the competition doesn't really exist because the private sector is pulling the labour from same pool of dentists as the NHS staff, and leaves a lack of NHS dentists which forces people to have to pay more in the private sector or take whatever is available in the NHS.
There are so many areas where essential private services is distorting public outcomes - the end result is you pay more for the same provision because of successive governments putting the brakes on public investment.
This is where the tax payer myth lands is. More expensive provision for the same service.
Of course I'm not advocating for public car leasing or phone contracts but there's a big list of public services which shouldn't be anywhere near private companies out for profit.
It should be a motivator to keep costs low through efficiency, the regulator should be there to cap bills and sanction poor performance to ensure service levels and quality standards are met. I accept the point about the monopoly situation but please remember the water boards were chronically inefficient and invested next to nothing in their latter years. Public ownership is not the panacea people believe it to be. The private companies, because they were forced to, invested a lot in our water infrastructure, not enough obviously but a lot ore than if water had remained I public ownership.
The private companies, because they were forced to, invested a lot in our water infrastructure, not enough obviously but a lot ore than if water had remained I public ownership.
What on earth are you talking about, water was publicly owned for several thousands of years before privatisation, it's been crisis stricken ever since then.
Water wasn't privatised because people weren't able to access clean affordable water to drink and bathe in.
It was privatised because it had the potential to make huge profits at the expense of consumers, something which goes to the very heart of neoliberalisn.
It was privatised because it had the potential to make huge profits at the expense of consumers,
Another legacy of the tory party.
---
What on earth are you talking about,
Can you not be so aggressive in the replies. What was wrong with starting it - Sorry, but the truth of the matter etc etc.
Can you not be so aggressive in the replies. What was wrong with starting it - Sorry, but the truth of the matter etc etc.
Sorry, the truth of the matter is that I was frankly gobsmacked by the suggestion that the privatised water industry had invested, quote, "a lot more than if water had remained I public ownership"
Water wasn't privatised by the Tories because they felt there hadn't been enough investment. If they gave any reason at all for privatisation apart from the usual "nationalisation is socialist and therefore bad" it was the false claim that it would bring down prices for consumers.
But yeah, point taken, I need to remind myself more often that I'm polite company and not talking to mates. 👍
Edit : Btw I thought I was being polite by saying "what on earth are you talking about", I rarely use language like that 😉
water was publicly owned for several thousands of years before privatisation, it's been crisis stricken ever since then.
What an earth are you talking about? Fomalised water supply as we know it today only came into existence in Victorian times. Before that people got water from their local well, stream or muddy puddle. The Victorians created much of the infrastructure we still use. The truth of the matter is the public water supply was on its knees before it was privatised, partly due to terrible unionised workforce and partly due to next to no investment in previous decades. Thatcher decided to tackle both issues by privatising the industry. Initially at least significant investment was made to stabilise and improve supply and waste water treatment. Has I been enough to keep up with demand, climate change and higher standards, no not really. Would Thatchers government have invested billions into the utilities, of course not.
What an earth are you talking about? Fomalised water supply as we know it today only came into existence in Victorian times.
I beg your pardon people were using water long before the Victorians arrived, and it wasn't privatised!
The truth of the matter is the public water supply was on its knees before it was privatised
My dear old chap what are you talking about, are you jesting with me?
In what way was the water supply "on its knees before it was privatised"? People didn't have clean water to drink? Not enough to have a decent bath? They couldn't afford to pay the bills? I actually remember a time when there was no such thing as "a water bill", the cost of the unlimited water supply was included in the council rates and not itemised.
And you would like us to believe that privateers enthusiastically bought an industry "on it's knees"?
Why would they do that? Do tell 💡
When Zak gets onto properly green politics I warm to him.
The privatisations that have worked for the public have been the ones where true competition is possible. Mobile phones, postal services... . Going from a public monopoly infrastructure to a private monopoly just adds costs and an incentive to put profit before service.
The truth of the matter is the public water supply was on its knees before it was privatised
It's on its arse now.
They do that - like with the NHS they under-invest and say we need to privatise.
private monopoly just adds costs and an incentive to put profit before service.
Don't forget many of them are just borrowing money to survive!
They've effectively already failed many times over.
You can talk about water supply if you want but the thing is that people are angry with the water companies mainly because of sewer overflow discharges.
You can’t compare the situation before privatization with how things are now. Before there were whole cities which had direct discharges to the sea with no treatment.
The number of overflow events was much higher and most overflows had inadequate screens and there was no way of knowing how often they discharged.
We have a long way to go to get to where we need to be. But simply nationalizing will not be enough.
The truth of the matter is the public water supply was on its knees before it was privatised, partly due to terrible unionised workforce and partly due to next to no investment in previous decades.
I was one of that workforce. When there was a strike I used to invite one of the picket line into the plant to see that I was only taking samples. They were responsible people who didn't want anyone drinking unsafe water, not even their kids. I'd qualify my colleagues at Welsh water as some of the most competant, commited, professional, hard working and caring I've worked with, and in my short career I worked in more sectors than most.
There was a program of investments with the objective of meeting Euro standards, then came privatisiation and mostly nothing happened which as plants and infrastucture only have a limited life meant things went backwards. If you're looking for an early water supply system then Mesopotamia was already pretty well organised. The Romans were very organised to the point some of their works are still in use.
The truth of the matter is the public water supply was on its knees before it was privatised
They do that - like with the NHS they under-invest and say we need to privatise.
Underinvestment in water wasn't something that began under Thatcher as some 4D chess prelude to privatisation in 1989. It had been decades of underinvestment combined with large population growth and increased per capita demand for water.
Most foul water wasn't treated, Thames Water just dumped sludge from WWTPs into the North Sea, and leakage in E&W was 50% higher than today! We can argue whether the "fix" (privatisation) was sensible or not, but it's mad to say that the water system in 1989 wasn't ****ed.
https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/households/supply-and-standards/leakage/#leakage5
Most foul water wasn't treated, Thames Water just dumped sludge from WWTPs into the North Sea
You say that as if it is somehow connected to ownership! 40 years ago there wasn't the same level of concern for the environment as there is today. What's changed that is government policy not privatisation.
Water companies are not now treating wastewater better than 40 years ago because of some weird and unnecessary sense of benevolence, they do it, often extremely badly, because they have no other choice.
There is not a shred of evidence that nationalised water companies would not maintain the same level of wastewater management as the current privatised companies do. In fact all the evidence suggests that publicly owned water companies which don't treat maximising profits as their priority would do a better job.
If you don't mind me saying.
Fomalised water supply as we know it today only came into existence in Victorian times.
Like aquaducts and sewers didn't exist before 1900 AD? 🤷♂️
The development of water supplies and waster water systems is probably the single greatest technological development that has benefited the human race in the last 2000 (probably a lot more) years. It's only in the last 50 years that the management and development of this critical technology has been in the hands of private monopolist companies and the result has been underinvestment, pollution, unstable supplies, and increasing prices for consumers despite a massively declining service.
Even pre-neolithic people needed easy unlimited access to clean water. And the access to that water was organised on a free communal basis.
The three most basic needs for humans.....shelter, food, and water. Add sex and you have the chance of a successful species.
there wasn't the same level of concern for the environment as there is today. What's changed that is government policy not privatisation.
So you do agree there has been significant investment by private companies to keep up with the changes in environmental standards. I don't think government policy would have changed quite as quickly if the investment was coming from them.
Don't forget many of them are just borrowing money to survive!
That's how most companies operate.
All these references to ancient water systems as a utopia for water supply are a bit silly in todays context. They may have brought in water but they didn't treat the waste, and the water was really there for the rich, with a trickle down affect for everyone else if they were lucky.
As for renationalisation leading to significant investment, I really can't see that happening when there's no money / will to do so. Even if the Greens get in (they won't) reality will kick in.
So you do agree there has been significant investment by private companies to keep up with the changes in environmental standards
Significant and sufficient aren't the same words.
There is little doubt that the water companies have not fulfilled their statutory duties with regards to wastewater management.
If they had then Thames Water would not have been fined over one hundred million pounds last year for wastewater management breaches.
Fines which Thames Water customers, including me, probably paid.
I don't think government policy would have changed quite as quickly if the investment was coming from them.
Yes it would, policy came from the EU, for example the urban wastewater treatment directive. Yet we know that standards are widely flouted by privately owned companies.
Even if the Greens get in (they won't) reality will kick in.
The Greens could quite possibly be in government in four years time, depending on how much comprise the centrists who are now firmly in control of the Labour Party are willing to make. Or in the unlikely event that they loosen their grip.
Significant and sufficient aren't the same words.
I never said the investment was sufficient but I do still maintain that more investment went into the systems than would have happened if the water supply had remained in public ownership.
As for EU legislation, there's plenty of homegrown legislation we fail to fund fully as well. Making it law doesn't guarantee it will get done.
[quote data-userid="2926" data-postid="13640341"
It's only in the last 50 years that the management and development of this critical technology has been in the hands of private monopolist companies and the result has been underinvestment, pollution, unstable supplies, and increasing prices for consumers despite a massively declining service.
Water has only been privatised in England and Wales for part of that time. The underinvestment and pollution existed way before privatisation. Although investment has massively increased, supply reliability has improved, and pollution has reduced since privatisation, the system still is not fixed.
What is it about criticising privatisation that leads to weird denialism about the huge problems that existed around water before 1989? None of this stuff began in 1989 and the objectively the position has improved since 1989 - but not enough and not necessarily quicker than would have been achieved under state management.
I never said the investment was sufficient but I do still maintain that more investment went into the systems than would have happened if the water supply had remained in public ownership.
And I will say less investment went in. Easy to just make stuff up isn't it.
As for EU legislation, there's plenty of homegrown legislation we fail to fund fully as well. Making it law doesn't guarantee it will get done.
Well yes, as we've seen from the privatized water industry's continued failure to comply with the law.
What is it about criticising privatisation that leads to weird denialism about the huge problems that existed around water before 1989?
Before privatization, bills were far lower (in relative terms) and investment was capped. The Tory government decided privatization was an easier solution than the state funding the necessary investment. Today we see a huge chunk of our bills going to servicing debt and dividends, no competition, not a single new reservoir, and a toothless regulator. These are direct impacts of a natural monopoly being privately owned.
OK, maybe - but why does a bad "fix" after 1989 lead to weird denialism about the huge problems that existed around water before 1989?
I read that the amount of money given to water cos shareholders is similar to their total debt
OK, maybe - but why does a bad "fix" after 1989 lead to weird denialism about the huge problems that existed around water before 1989?
You'll need to redirect your question to someone who believes there were no problems before privatization.