Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here

Leak targets missed, but water profits up

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5101434.stm
Thames Water has missed its leakage reduction target for a third successive year, but has announced a 31% rise in pre-tax profits to £346.5m.

Though the amount of water lost has reduced, it still lost 894 million litres per day to leaks.

The target set for it by the water regulator Ofwat was 860 million litres.

The firm has asked for a drought order which would affect London and small parts of Kent and Surrey. These areas are already subject to a hosepipe ban.

I think someone should step in and severely punish them., If £346.5m isnt enough to fix some of the pipes, I don't what is. It's just ridiculous, the problem with private companies is of course the profit incentive, but thats the reason there are the regulators / government. But it seems with the water industry they're too meek and don't do anything.

How about they fine them the sum of their profit and give the money to a contractor to fix the pipes. Sorted :thumb:

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's privatisation for you. Private companies only have one obligation: to deliver the maximum amount of profits possible to their shareholders.

    Sorry for saying this yet again, but since some people still don't get the message I think it's worth saying: private companies cannot and must not be allowed to run essential public services.

    If this government was really a 'Labour' one and it had any guts it would forcefuly renationalise the water companies (and some other services as well which I won't go into now) and spend all the money that needs spending on the crumbling network.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I disagree, on one level, and that is that true competition provides the best possible service in all markets. However, water companies aren't in a true market, they have a monopoly. It is much like what is wrong with the rail network.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What's what I meant Fiend. I didn't mean that the government should renationalise everything. I don't have a problem with the telephone network, for instance. But water and the railways, yes they should be. There are no advantages to private companies running them since each one has a monopoly on the area they 'serve'.

    To hell with them and and their precious profits.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If there is one thing that should have remained in public ownership,surely it must be water.It is obscene that people are making vast sums of money out of the most necessary of resources.There was a good T.V programme recently entitled,Ithink, 'The politics of water'.It set out to show how water resources in poor countries were being taken over by private companies,usually with the help of the World Bank and western goverments;with dire consequences for local people.One item featured a ''well known soft drinks company'' whose plant in an area of India drained the water table so much(via bore holes) that poor farmers for miles around were finding their wells running dry.The company in question ,of course denied responsibility and commissioned all sorts of scientists(in their pay?) to refute the obvious.The programme,more worryingly,predicted more wars in future over control of water rather than oil.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    What's what I meant Fiend. I didn't mean that the government should renationalise everything. I don't have a problem with the telephone network, for instance. But water and the railways, yes they should be. There are no advantages to private companies running them since each one has a monopoly on the area they 'serve'.

    To hell with them and and their precious profits.

    Railways are in competition with buses / planes and just taking your own car really, but I agree with water... its just these companies dont seem to have any responsibility whatsoever. They dont even pretend, by meeting the targets, they just sit ack and watch their profits.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    johnnny wrote:
    If there is one thing that should have remained in public ownership,surely it must be water.It is obscene that people are making vast sums of money out of the most necessary of resources.There was a good T.V programme recently entitled,Ithink, 'The politics of water'.It set out to show how water resources in poor countries were being taken over by private companies,usually with the help of the World Bank and western goverments;with dire consequences for local people.One item featured a ''well known soft drinks company'' whose plant in an area of India drained the water table so much(via bore holes) that poor farmers for miles around were finding their wells running dry.The company in question ,of course denied responsibility and commissioned all sorts of scientists(in their pay?) to refute the obvious.The programme,more worryingly,predicted more wars in future over control of water rather than oil.
    I remember the news about the 'well known soft drinks company' and its antics in India. It's disgusting.

    And you are quite right that water will soon become the new oil.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    water privatisation is increasing all over the world and with the effects of climate change water will become more sparse so control of water will be far more important than oil because we all need water, leaving the poorest dieing of lack of water!
    in 2003 30,000 people were relocated from Losetho to channel water to the richer state of South Africa
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3136713.stm
    (or from horses mouth)
    http://www.lhwp.org.ls/overview/default.htm
    reducing the amount of water in Lesotho and allowing the dominance of richer states this is a small example think in 50-100 years with China sourcing water from the poorer states in south west asia.
    back to the UK water privatisation has increased bills and profits, a nationalised water board doesnt need profits so bills would be cheaper and more money could be put back into the system, nationalisation makes sense!
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    I agree with Alladin tbh. Private companies are obviously going to try to run in the most profitable way.

    Fixing pipes costs money. And who cares about using all the water up? The current guys running it will be dead before it affects anyone!

    TBH - unsupprising. Anglian Water are yet to fix a drainage problem that causes floods every time it reains heavily hear. And it has been happeneing since my parents can remember moving here. HUGE flooding - cars can't get past it when it floods quite badly.

    And I have seen leaky water mains go weeks to months with no action, except say a little barrier round it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not even properly privatised because prices are fixed by OfWat. What we as consumers gain I will never understand.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Kentish wrote:
    It's not even properly privatised because prices are fixed by OfWat. What we as consumers gain I will never understand.

    Shoody private service at jacked up prices.

    Whats not to gain? :lol: Typical of the UK to even mess up privatising - can be seen with the Rail network too. Do'h.
Sign In or Register to comment.