[News] Well done southern water

[Monkey Man]

Maria Caulfield, the brittle right-wing nutjob who specialises in playing the victim, has unsurprisingly been on the receiving end of social media criticism from her constituents and others about the way she decided to vote.

Her response has been to block those people, call them liars, and tell them they should hang their heads in shame for spreading disinformation.

She says "it's no wonder that MPs are receiving death threats" when such behaviour goes on.

So there you have it. An MP who believes she is above scrutiny and above criticism, and invokes a horrible and unconnected murder as part of her argument against standing up to water company destruction of our waterways and marine ecosystems.

 

[KZNSeagull]

My understanding of this issue is that sewage is already pumped into rivers/the sea due to storm overflows. This country's ancient sewage system has storm water going into the sewers so when it rains a lot the sewage treatment works cannot cope and the excess overflows. This bill introduces measures to start to address this. The amendment that was voted against effectively wanted water companies to stop this practice without putting a plan in place to do so. Estimates are that the cost to solve this issue properly is between £150bn and £650bn so it is not something that is going to happen overnight. Stopping water companies from using storm overflows without a putting a solution in place is rather silly and that is why the amendment was voted down. Forcing water companies to stop using storm overflows without an alternative could have meant sewage backing up and we all know what would happen then.

 

[vegster]

Interesting piece by Zoe Williams in today's Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...wage-symbolise-broken-brexit-promises-for-one

Clicking on her link to the list of MPs who voted against a Lords amendment to stop water companies dumping raw sewage in the sea, and given the recent media attention, I was amazed to see the names of MPs in the Southern Water region, some with coastal constituencies . Have the likes of Maria Caulfield - Lewes, Mims Davies - Mid Sussex, Natalie Elphick - Dover, Nusrat Ghani - Wealden, Nick Gibb - Bognor, Andrew Griffith - Arundel, Sally Ann Hart - Hastings, Gillian Keegan - Chichester, Tom Tugendhat - Tonbridge not watched any local news in the past few months? They seem to have all taken a position against some very strong feeling from all across the political spectrum in their constituencies.

I looked at the list and was genuinely surprised to see that Bottomley and Loughton were NOT on it!

 

[Springal]

This bill introduces measures to start to address this. The amendment that was voted against effectively wanted water companies to stop this practice without putting a plan in place to do so. Estimates are that the cost to solve this issue properly is between £150bn and £650bn so it is not something that is going to happen overnight. Stopping water companies from using storm overflows without a putting a solution in place is rather silly and that is why the amendment was voted down. Forcing water companies to stop using storm overflows without an alternative could have meant sewage backing up and we all know what would happen then.

Southern Water have been under investigation since 2009 for this kind of thing. Hardly overnight....

 

[vegster]

its good ambush politics. make an amendment that asks for change that is difficult and costly, knowing government MPs will vote against. cue headlines which overlook nothing changed as a result.

Do you agree that at some point things have to change? It's cost consumers £57 billion so far with no visible improvements. Come on! We have " Taken back Control " so we could stop polluting ourselves with a little but of effort.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Southern Water have been under investigation since 2009 for this kind of thing. Hardly overnight....

Indeed. Hence the bill

 

[KZNSeagull]

Do you agree that at some point things have to change? It's cost consumers £57 billion so far with no visible improvements. Come on! We have " Taken back Control " so we could stop polluting ourselves with a little but of effort.

The bill is starting to address it. There is a legal requirement on government in this bill to produce a plan by Sept next year to reduce storm overflows and a separate report on what would be involved in eliminating them entirely.

 

[beorhthelm]

Do you agree that at some point things have to change? It's cost consumers £57 billion so far with no visible improvements. Come on! We have " Taken back Control " so we could stop polluting ourselves with a little but of effort.

yes i do. and if anyone read the amendment (and wider bill) will see its doing something about the problem. thats not mentioned anywhere, just that one clause was removed.

headlines saying the vote was to allow discharging sewage are deliberatly misleading. it isnt and remain outlawed. the vote highlighted was specifically about storm drains, currently allowed becuase the alternative (sewage backs up) is far worse.

 

[Seaview Seagull]

Natural monopolies like water should not be in private hands. All that does is add shareholders expecting profits to an already difficult situation. There can be no competition to force efficiency or control prices

 

[Jim in the West]

My understanding of this issue is that sewage is already pumped into rivers/the sea due to storm overflows. This country's ancient sewage system has storm water going into the sewers so when it rains a lot the sewage treatment works cannot cope and the excess overflows. This bill introduces measures to start to address this. The amendment that was voted against effectively wanted water companies to stop this practice without putting a plan in place to do so. Estimates are that the cost to solve this issue properly is between £150bn and £650bn so it is not something that is going to happen overnight. Stopping water companies from using storm overflows without a putting a solution in place is rather silly and that is why the amendment was voted down. Forcing water companies to stop using storm overflows without an alternative could have meant sewage backing up and we all know what would happen then.

I don't think that's entirely correct - the obligation in the Environment Bill (as I understand it) would have placed a legal duty on water companies in England and Wales “to take all reasonable steps to ensure untreated sewage is not discharged from storm overflows(1) A sewerage undertaker must demonstrate improvements in the sewerage systems and progressive reductions in the harm caused by untreated sewage discharges.(2) The Secretary of State, the Director and the Environment Agency must exercise their respective functions under this and any other Act to secure compliance with this duty."

In other words, the water companies would need to start to take action - but it wouldn't need to happen overnight. And whilst it would undoubtedly cost a lot, this just indicates the level of the problem. And another amendment proposed that the government put in place a plan to deliver the required changes. I think the Tories who voted against the amendment have sought to characterise it as an obligation to spend hundreds of billions of pounds immediately in an unplanned way - whereas the reality is a lot different.

 

[KZNSeagull]

I don't think that's entirely correct - the obligation in the Environment Bill (as I understand it) would have placed a legal duty on water companies in England and Wales “to take all reasonable steps to ensure untreated sewage is not discharged from storm overflows(1) A sewerage undertaker must demonstrate improvements in the sewerage systems and progressive reductions in the harm caused by untreated sewage discharges.(2) The Secretary of State, the Director and the Environment Agency must exercise their respective functions under this and any other Act to secure compliance with this duty."

In other words, the water companies would need to start to take action - but it wouldn't need to happen overnight. And whilst it would undoubtedly cost a lot, this just indicates the level of the problem. And another amendment proposed that the government put in place a plan to deliver the required changes. I think the Tories who voted against the amendment have sought to characterise it as an obligation to spend hundreds of billions of pounds immediately in an unplanned way - whereas the reality is a lot different.

I understand that, thanks, but I believe the rest of the bill pretty much does this anyway. The government are now legally obliged to come up with a funded plan for reducing storm overflows by next September and will also report on what it will take to remove the problem entirely.

 

[Pinkie Brown]

I looked at the list and was genuinely surprised to see that Bottomley and Loughton were NOT on it!

Plus also Merriman from Bexhill who rebelled. All three are coastal MP's which obviously occupied their minds somewhat. Bottomley is a dinosaur and untouchable in parliament. He will know it and chances are, he will step down next GE anyway. Loughton's constituency contains LOTS of water. To have gone against the amendment would have been a bad look and probable local PR disaster. He also might have one eye on his iffy majority too, given the recent changes to the Worthing and Shoreham political landscape at council level. To see the likes of Sally Ann Hart and Maria Caulfield on that list is no surprise. Both nasty loons and nodding dog voting fodder. Caulfield in particular has been throwing a hissy on social media over the last 24 hrs, due the stick she has been getting.

 

[beorhthelm]

I understand that, thanks, but I believe the rest of the bill pretty much does this anyway. The government are now legally obliged to come up with a funded plan for reducing storm overflows by next September and will also report on what it will take to remove the problem entirely.

exactly. the criticism ive seen of the removed clause is that it had no plan, just said do the thing. which maybe gets it moving, doesnt help if the thing is big, difficult and needs some planning.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Breaking news: George Eustace says government will write into law a requirement for water companies to gradually reduce use of storm overflows. No further details at moment.

 

[Springal]

 

[Weststander]

For many reasons, they should never have been privatised.

30 years ago our water charges were £170 a year, £370 in real terms. Now double that. A huge bill to us every year, when water used to be way down the monthly budget of household costs.

What’s changed? The £36m Brighton to Peacehaven bored storm tunnel was built a very long time ago now and later the sewage treatment plant at Peacehaven.

Southern Water, permitted by the regulatory framework, are greedy feckers.

(I’m not a leftie as such, a floating voter).

 

[Randy McNob]

[tweet]1453218590174420993[/tweet]

 

[beorhthelm]

For many reasons, they should never have been privatised.

30 years ago our water charges were £170 a year, £370 in real terms. Now double that. A huge bill to us every year, when water used to be way down the monthly budget of household costs.

What’s changed? The £36m Brighton to Peacehaven bored storm tunnel was built a very long time ago now and later the sewage treatment plant at Peacehaven.

Southern Water, permitted by the regulatory framework, are greedy feckers.

(I’m not a leftie as such, a floating voter).

metered water and general cost of improvements and pipe renewal should have increased your water bill. its unavoidable, even intended (to reduce wastefulness), just like legislation to clean up discharge more will lead to increased bills. this would happen regardless of the ownership model, unless we have it funded out of general taxation, which just shifts the bill so we dont see it. increasing bills in line with inflation would only cover the basic running and maintenance, not new investment.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

metered water and general cost of improvements and pipe renewal should have increased your water bill. its unavoidable, even intended (to reduce wastefulness), just like legislation to clean up discharge more will lead to increased bills. this would happen regardless of the ownership model, unless we have it funded out of general taxation, which just shifts the bill so we dont see it. increasing bills in line with inflation would only cover the basic running and maintenance, not new investment.

You missed the bit where 50% of the amount of money spent on infrastructure upgrades and maintenance went into the pockets of shareholders as pure profit, most of whom are foreign companies or individuals? And you mention reducing wastefulness?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I wonder if this is what people had in mind when they rushed to vote for Thatcher and her privatisation agenda.

A foreign-owned water supply, asset stripped, and pumping our own shit into our own sea.

Lovely.