The Government scraps laws requiring house builders to ensure they do not pollute rivers. Feargal is not happy. https://x.com/feargal_sharkey/status/1696555617177981034?s=46&t=oqOMSJXE_g7J5C7kNPG9LA
In further testament to the toxic nature of Brexit and the fig leaf it offers for the powerful and self-interested, this vandalism is presented as a triumph.
Sunak is a scumbag as are all of his ilk and those who own the companies that build this garbage. Much of which is still unsuitable for the environment. None of it is ethical or environmentally friendly. These companies have continually lobbied for rules to be dropped in all sorts of areas and this government has done what they asked for. So that yet again a few individuals can get even richer at the expense of the environment. No doubt they also sponsor the Conservatives, are waiting for peerages and also highly likely many within that party will also benefit financially. It's such a corrupt and shady world they have created. Over the top environmental restrictions. Such a toilet rag the Express. Those that read it are likely to possess a couple of brain cells.
Completely agree with his stance and I'm completely against dropping rules like this however, from an investment analysis point of view quoting one day's trading in Persimmon shares in such a way as to suggest they're laughing all the way to the bank sort of smells alittle of similar underhand tactics that he's against and a fundemental lack of understanding of the market. For Balance this is the Persimmon share price over the last year. and over the last decade: Point the anger at the poluters, the regulators and the lawmakers, not the pension funds and investors who in real terms have lost money over the last decade.
That’s a reasonable point for perspective, but the share price is still pretty healthy and the gains that have been made this week are real gains. The builders have successfully lobbied, not to utilise other land currently used for everything from Country Estates to Golf Courses or to free up land they are sitting on waiting for the value to rise but to pollute the water. This means we value those other uses above both housing and protecting our Country.
Agreed. Builders will build if they can make it more profitable than simply hanging onto land. It needs to be made easier for them and more expensive to hang on. B this should not be at the cost of the environment. We need more homes in the south east, but not at the expense of quality or environment.
Then the water companies have the nerve to put out "Save our Streams" advice. How about you stop ****ing up our streams? Seems to me the people who claim to love this country are the ones that are trashing it.
All that money given to shareholders and venture capital companies. If it had been spent on infrastructure we would not be wondering about the continual outflows of raw sewage and leaking mains. Privatization is always best. A load of utter codswallop. Wonder if Keir Smarmer has any convictions at all or is the next Tony Blair.
The plan of putting the nation's water infrastructure in the hands of private businesses who, naturally, opt to sweat their assets to breaking point rather than investing in them, has been a disaster.
Don't understand how it benefits the country to have our infrastructure monopolies in private hands. We all need water, we all pay for it, yet we have private companies profiting from this guaranteed income stream, whilst simultaneously shirking their environmental responsibilities, with a toothless/corrupt regulator not doing anything to change this.
Privitisation itself as an idea isn't the issue. It's the poor regulation and control of the private companies that is. As usual government takes the money and runs without accepting the responsibility and managing it properly. I'd rather a professional company makes a modest proffit whilst delivering safe efficient water in preference to a bloated inefficient and poorly run system mismanaged by the government. The key is getting the government to control the contracts effectively, regulate the safety & quality and limit the dividends to a percentage of structural investment. Unfortunately privitisation was seen as free cash with an abandonment of responsibility.
I think this is a bit like when communists say that the problems with communism would just be sorted if it was done correctly. Privatisation always comes with an abandonment of responsibility, not least of all to the terms, conditions and pensions of those who get privatised. There are some services for which privatisation is fundamentally incompatible. Regulate it by all means, but there are always ways around for big companies. The losses always cost the taxpayer. The profits benefit only the shareholders.
I don't disagree with this. We can't go back however, so the government needs to start kicking the water company backsides. Unfortunately I can't see that happening whatever flavour government gets in.
Exactly. No reason why the effort of regulating a load of profiteering bandits can't be put into better public operation. The motivations are key. A public company exists to serve the public. A private company exists to make profits. That means cut corners when you can, deliver the minimum and boost margins.
The staggering thing is how many of our national assets are in foreign hands (EDF, German train companies, 70% of British water companies being foreign owned are a few high-profile examples). They take the profits back 'home' to provide better public services and energy for people in France, Germany, Australia, Canada etc. But, y'know, small boats. The idea that this Government has any motivation whatsoever to do anything about water, energy or transport companies unless it is dragged kicking and screaming by some scandal or other is fanciful. This Government does not exist for the public benefit. Just throwing up our hands and saying; "Oh well, I can't see anyone improving this" is precisely the sort of attitude that has enabled 13 years of Tory self-interest to flourish. "They're all as bad as each other" or 'Yes but what about Tony Blair" are the arguments of the apologists who are actually quite happy to tolerate failure after failure and set the national expectation so low as to allow the thieves and charlatans to steal a bit more for themselves. Astonishing. Plenty of people opposed privatisation at the time and warned about what would happen but they were dismissed as negative naysayers. And that was because enough of the little people were bought and paid for in the 80s with the promise of having enough of the crumbs from their BT shares (or whatever) to buy a new Vauxhall Cavalier GTI or a holiday in Florida and they thought it was all marvellous. The mass self-off also contributed to a house price boom and after enjoying the rise people sucked up the booming interest rates and didn't join the dots between the two.
Absolutely. I am of the opinion that all basic necessities should be public owned: water, electricity, rail, internet, etc. Things you need to conduct daily life. If it's mandatory then why let a company eke profit out of it at the public's expense?
The cost would be exhorbitant when we have better things to spend our limited resources on. Unfortunately you can't sell something then demand it back free of charge. You'll have to pay market rate and convince the owners to sell, or suffer years of more expensive legal wranglings. Especially as pointed out above you have other countries involved. It's just not worth going there. We need to make the best of a bad job and ramp up control, regulation and penalties.
Not necessarily. Hit them with massive fines for every discharge, to the extent that they are loss-making. Watch share price collapse and hoover up. Play the disaster capitalists at their own game.
Absolutely. This supine surrender to 'the market' – as if it's ever been the answer to anything other than satisfying the lazy and the greedy – is baffling. Weedily saying: "Oh it's too late to do anything better than this mess because it'll be difficult and expensive" is hardly the Great British spirit we all heard so much about a few years ago. What's happened? Why the meek surrender to corporate interests? The ideology is so deeply flawed. A country is about its people and almost nothing in this country is done for the benefit of the people. Surely just looking around at the mess, the squalor, the closed shops, the broken roads, the cost of everything, the tiny newbuilds (what small number there are) with their flimsy walls and mouldy corners, is enough for people to believe in and want a different way. Baffling that confronted with dreadfulness at every turn the response is: "Oh well, can't be helped."
Exactly. We should be demanding better. Instead the media (including SM) has us all simply picking a side and digging in against all logic.
Wow they loved it at tbe time didn't they? They were so smug about it. Free money! How many shares have you bought? Oh I applied for the maximum. Wow did you see how much theyve opened up at? £1 each to buy and now they're £1.83! I'm selling right away. Instant profit! I did not buy one single privatisation share. At all. I declined. I didn't agree with privatisation and so refused to take part. I made a personal sacrifice and did the morally right thing. Took the correct revolutionary path. Now I bet most of the people complaining about these private companies decaying the infrastructure, squeezing and sweating their workers and ripping off the public are the same damn ones who allowed their morals to be bought. Who had their price. They bought those shares and had the new Vauxhall or the holiday to Disneyland. It was obvious and plain what would happen after privatisation. Posts above have laid it out clearly - private profit rather than public service. I can't believe those taking the money really thought anything otherwise. I feel about it the same as I did about thatcher's poll tax. I didn't fight against that - just paid it. You voted for it, so get on with it. That was my feeling.
There needs to be a revolution. And it will come. Always does when there is a particular stress moment and the ever growing inequality between the super rich and the rest. Smarmer should be ashamed of his policies of not daring to tax the super rich whose greed knows no bounds. I recently saw an idiot billionaire building an artificial lake in one of the most weather affected areas in the US in Arizona where everyone is being told to conserve water not to mention trying to build more bloody golf courses. The lack of regulation and checks on private individuals versus the everyday man and woman in the street is a disgrace. The RSPB apologizing for calling ministers liars should also be ashamed of themselves. As a member I call these politicians many things far worse. Crooks being one. Scum another. Most should be in jail for the criminal incompetence they have displayed. And if Smarmer has any guts left or moral fibre abolish that anachronism of the Lords. Religious nuts, inherited wealth, crooks and backhanding favours should all be removed.
The rise in the prices shows somewhat that the nation's assets were sold off for a song. When Russia did it (albeit on a larger scale) we called it corruption. Here it was just BAU.
It won't. There is no way this country revolts against the **** that is being flung at us, whilst we have convenient scape goats like immigrants, Putin, the EU etc.
Nick Gibb, Tory MP and current Minister of State for schools, was across the media this morning explaining that revealing a handful of days before the schools go back that a number of buildings are crumbling and at risk of collapse was evidence of how well prepared the Government has been. He then asked Naga Muchetty why she was being critical rather than praise how far ahead of other countries we are. They do this because they know from their focus groups (comprising people from the narrow sector of the electorate they need to fool all of the time) that it works. Worth also pointing out that Gibb’s brother Robbie is one of the Tories who infiltrated the upper echelons of BBC News. There’s always a connection. Always. I’d also say that while it’s very easy to criticise Starmer it’s also too early for him to show his cards because our dysfunctional media and electoral system will chew it up and spit it out. It’s already happening - see how willingly people think Ulez is purely Labour policy. If Starmer spooks the rich now he’ll be absolutely destroyed and enough people will believe it.
This is the thing. So many of our voting public are stockholmed into believing that a tax on the Billionaire elite is a tax on them. Often see someone outraged that Amazon or Branson might have to fork over a few million more for the benefit of doing business in our country as if it affects them and their 70k a year, or as if they still harbour a hope that they, soon might be worth 70bn and become a victim of this heartless persecution.
Yep, but also many people think Ulez affects them and their vehicle when it doesn’t. It’s an issue which really reflects the whole political landscape quite effectively. Unfortunately huge numbers of people form strong opinions based on bad information or poor understanding of evidence. But huge chunks of the media have conditioned them to think that way - spoon feeding them simple answers to complex issues, parroting the three-word slogans devised by think tank grifters.
