Compulsory water metering

[Mary Fisher]

No longer :-(

Except for very specialised makers.

Mary

[Andy Hall]

I guess that geography was no more a strong subject for you than physics.

Presumably the till works out discounts for you so that lack of arithmetic ability isn't too much of a daily challenge.

[Robert]

"The four smallest wheels of my water meter go round OK when someone has a shower, but the ones that measure whole cubic metres don't go round any more. So my usage is zero every time the water company reads it. They don't seem to have noticed. I expect someone will come around and have a look one day. "

I wonder what your legal position will be when they realise and then present you with a large backdated estimated bill (or the equivalent unmetered bill). Since you knowlingly allowed the situation to continue you might end up worse off than if you get it fixed

Robert

[The3rd Earl Of Derby]

They probably already have him sussed,its not down to the meter reader to tell him this, as his job is just to read off the digits. :-)

[Chris Cowley]

Ah, I see. That's how they do it is it; our neighbour would have two meters (water in, and water out) and we'd have our own which should tally exactly with the neighbour's "water out".

[:::Jerry::::]

than

IYO...

As it happens, I'm not at all suggesting that nationalisation is the 'way to go', just that some industries (like water) are far to vital to allow profit to be more important than safety or investment. I'm not even sure that the railways, having used Railrrack as an example, is an industry that needs be owned by the state (although it does need, along with the rest of the PT industry, good regulation), although the way that the railway system was privatised in the 1990's was totally wrong - it's prime purpose was to raise as much money for HMG (that could then be set against pre election tax cuts) rather than what was best for the industry.

[Andy Hall]

That isn't logical either. In order for an industry to be successful in the long term it does require investment and renewal. There is no reason to restrict that investment to being via public funding. In fact it is a very bad way to fund something because of the bureaucracy and inefficiency of governmental organisation. The best pathway for my money and that of others to reach an industry like this is via my payment for product and service directly as a customer or if I choose, via investment in said company; it certainly isn't through the tax system.

Nothing *needs* to be owned by the state with the possible exception of policing and military and security services.

There was nothing wrong with the principle of privatisation. The issue was execution and regulation. A government department was responsible for that and failed.

[Doctor Drivel]

It is.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Security tends to be one of the first things private companies contract out.

[mcbrien410]

What's the problem?

Australia has had them since 1987 to my knowledge.

Australia turned metric in ONE YEAR.

A packet of crisps will still be dearer than fillet steak be it per pound or per kilogram.

Chris.

[Andy Hall]

OK, no I meant security in the secret services sense.

[John Cartmell]

Government stocks.

To be compared with the bureaucracy, inefficiency, profit margins, and lack of accountability of non-governmental organisations.

[:::Jerry::::]

vital

successful

Sorry but private funding, share holding, will always place profit before anything else. If an investor (be that time or money) is not going to obtain a return on their investment they will be unlikely to invest in the first place, would you just give many thousands of pounds to someone else and not expect to earn [1] anything from doing so (if you are you must be one very generous person!), this means that if a company can get away without spending money on infrastructure they will - in most companies and industries that is not an issue but is some is is.

[1] or gain some other return.

In

bureaucracy

That might be so, but the problem is not who owns the company but who it is run, the same problems can effect private companies.

choose,

That is the problem, you have no choice with some industries, water is a prime example - how ever badly I feel my domestic or waste water companies are run or treat their customers I don't really have any choice other than continue to pay them money each month / quarter / year.

Why not, as you later say, your taxes are good enough to fund the police or military, why not something that is vital for life rather than just maintaining the status quo?

example,

exception

1990's

I didn't say there was.

No, a political party (who were telling Government departments what to do) was responsible, they used the privatisation of the railways in the same way as they had done with the Telecom, Gas and services industries - for electoral reasons. No privatisation should be done for ideological reasons, just as no nationalisation should be, the problem is - most are.

[Daytona]

Since when, I wonder ? Since 1996 in my case.

Daytona

[:::Jerry::::]

South

that we

There might be plenty of people, but will those people do the jobs required, are they able, capable or willing - if not, it doesn't matter how many people there is, there will be a 'skills shortage', even if that skill is just someone willing to bend over all day cutting cabbages out of the ground.

[dennis]

Like when you put safety in the hands of one government body and put all the other regulations in the hands of another govwernment body? This works really well as you get the body which has the most clout demanding that the rails be kept open at all times and the one incharge of safety asking why the work can't be done?

When president Blair demands the safety work be done everyone complains about the delays and big fines are the result.

Hardly surrprising railtrack had trouble really when it was impossible to satisfy both government bodies and both wanted to show who was boss rather than agreeing a way forward.

I see the new company incharge of the rail doesn't appear to answer to both departments any more, I wonder why?.

[Mary Fisher]

LOL! I hope I remember that :-)

Mary

[dennis]

Private companies have more reason to build infrastructure and plant. They *need* to sell a product and they lose customers and cash if they can't deliver that product.

A government owned company will just come up with an excuse and say you can have your product in six months, maybe. They don't actually need to sell the products to survive.

This is exactly what it was like with BT before it was privatised. You used to have to queue for a phone line and pay high prices.

This is one reason for everyone to have metered water. Then the companies would have more reason to ensure a plentiful supply so that they can sell you more.

As it is many of them have had to expand into other growth areas to make profits and they do that quite well.

The same will happen with flat rate internet. You will get companies that just don't upgrade the network as the customer pays the same whatever the core looks like.

The government has always taken the cheap option. If they run water you will just have permenent hose pipe bans as spending money on water isn't going to buy them votes. Look at their indecision about power generation. They have squandered years trying to buy votes by not deciding what to do. We will probably end up with power shortages before they decide what they are going to allow.

They did it because of the resounding success the previous floatations had been. However the did it wrong but refuse to admit it and insist on buck passing. Such is the government that some minority of us voted in.

[Alan Holmes]

About 8 years ago I was asked if I wanted a water meter by Thames Water, I declined and heard no more about it.

There was no compultion!

[Doctor Drivel]

Selling product is different to selling an essential service. Very different. Selling product means you need a product that is competitive in function and price. The water companies have no competition whatsoever - private monopolies.

The privateers have assessed the cost of upgrading the infrastructure, which would also involve creating a national grid for water vs. reduced water consumption by installing water meters. Installing water meters won. On the surface it appears OK. But because they have skimped on the infrastructure to pay out dividends, when there is a tiny bit of a dry spell the infrastructure can't cope - hence hosepipe bans and standpipes in the streets. Yes, in a country that has an abundance of water. Madness sheer madness. The sooner it is all taken back into public ownership and run for the benefit of the consumers, which it clearly is not, the better.

For decades the UK shipped tankers of water from the UK to Gibraltar, yet the privateers say they cannot pipe water from one county to the next. Total bollock!!!!