I thank you. So this para appears to summarise the "benefits":
Ofwat’s report suggests that reductions in customer bills are possible but likely to be small, especially in the short term. However, it says it could lead to innovation, improved customer service, new offers – including bundling of products such as energy and telecoms with water – and, crucially, give customers the freedom to choose their supplier – ending the final retail monopoly. Customer research suggests that 56% think having choice would be a good thing.
Ok so it's basically the same shit that they pulled with energy and telco. You could have your water "provided" by O2. Otherwise I'm struggling to imagine the "innovation", perhaps a separate tap for "sparkling", thus doing away with your Sodastream?
What a load of bollocks. Water is a crucial national strategic resource. There are numerous authorities warning that there will be "water wars" in some parts of the world. That may seem fanciful as you look out the window, but the UK has had more water restrictions than where I live in recent years, despite the drought conditions affecting most of Europe at the same time as the UK. So many people, so many power washes, sprinklers and private pools, in such a small island. Well you cannot as a business supplier easily increase the supply of this "product". You can't make it rain more. Fortunately. the storage of water can be increased, but that has to be a State undertaking. Reservoirs involve significant planning issues. A bit like HS2, only the State can and should invest in the infrastructure to maintain the supply of water. Which is why the end benefits of "competition" look like sod all, as Ofwat is struggling to conceal.
However as yet I’m not really seeing an answer to the big headache of the private railway which nobody has so far addressed.
Privatisation makes sense if it encourages competition, which benefits customers. How’s your choice of water supplier working out?
The UK system split the railway up into 20+ private monopolies. Now, I can certainly see that you can introduce competition on long distance routes, so long as you have a body that controls the timetables and fares, which GBR would do. So lets say you have two operators running high speed London- Manchester. You might be the sort that chooses one operator for the free coffee. But others just want to know that every half hour, on the same minute, there’s a train on that route. GBR would organise that. But will it be of interest to private operators compared to the old monopoly that Virgin enjoyed for years? Not sure. I am sure that you cant do this anyway on the commuter services. Better to hand it all to TfL, effectively the return of Network South East. But then it is all State owned, so where’s the pressure to deliver? Dunno. Across Europe they run the Open Access system on these routes, which works better, but private operators say it is still unfair because they go up against a strong State operator such as Deutsche Bahn. Fact is though that you could get from Brussels to Prague for €29, — albeit you need the Man in Seat 61 to guide you through buying the tickets. So we aint got it sorted either.
Never forget that while she hated trains, it wasnt Thatcher that sold them off. Presumably she realised it was a can of worms. But then again...water...
Water is due to be opened up to competition for households over the coming years, it has already happened for business and i’d argue the margins are so small that unless you’re a huge nationwide company like Tesco and would benefit from consolidating all your retail element over the country into one supplier, then there is very little benefit to be gained. And I think it will be the same for households, but where you might be able to realise benefit for non-financial reasons.
I’d argue your average measured water bill of approx £1-2 a day is astonishing value compared to most other services. And most measured customers could do a lot to bring their own costs down.
Well, while it's diverting from the topic a little, I'm really interested in this. Can you tell me more about exactly what the nature of the competition is here? There's the reservoir. There are the pipes from the reservoir, which I presume are owned by Thames Water for many Lifers. The pipes go down your street and into your house. The water coms out of your tap. You pay Thames Water. They say thank you and shove your prices up next year in gratitude. So how exactly will a "competitor" be inserted into that flow? Not having a dig at you mate, by all means just send me a link to something about it; I'm really surprised I haven't picked this up before, as the water privatisation does my head in, and it's all over Europe thanks to the Brits pushing it in the early 90s.
I must admit, I am in the same boat as you. Surely you don't open things up for companies to make profits when you should be supplying something like water at cost after expenses to customers. I include eco investment in that.
However as yet I’m not really seeing an answer to the big headache of the private railway which nobody has so far addressed.
Privatisation makes sense if it encourages competition, which benefits customers. How’s your choice of water supplier working out?
The UK system split the railway up into 20+ private monopolies. Now, I can certainly see that you can introduce competition on long distance routes, so long as you have a body that controls the timetables and fares, which GBR would do. So lets say you have two operators running high speed London- Manchester. You might be the sort that chooses one operator for the free coffee. But others just want to know that every half hour, on the same minute, there’s a train on that route. GBR would organise that. But will it be of interest to private operators compared to the old monopoly that Virgin enjoyed for years? Not sure. I am sure that you cant do this anyway on the commuter services. Better to hand it all to TfL, effectively the return of Network South East. But then it is all State owned, so where’s the pressure to deliver? Dunno. Across Europe they run the Open Access system on these routes, which works better, but private operators say it is still unfair because they go up against a strong State operator such as Deutsche Bahn. Fact is though that you could get from Brussels to Prague for €29, — albeit you need the Man in Seat 61 to guide you through buying the tickets. So we aint got it sorted either.
Never forget that while she hated trains, it wasnt Thatcher that sold them off. Presumably she realised it was a can of worms. But then again...water...
Water is due to be opened up to competition for households over the coming years, it has already happened for business and i’d argue the margins are so small that unless you’re a huge nationwide company like Tesco and would benefit from consolidating all your retail element over the country into one supplier, then there is very little benefit to be gained. And I think it will be the same for households, but where you might be able to realise benefit for non-financial reasons.
I’d argue your average measured water bill of approx £1-2 a day is astonishing value compared to most other services. And most measured customers could do a lot to bring their own costs down.
Well, while it's diverting from the topic a little, I'm really interested in this. Can you tell me more about exactly what the nature of the competition is here? There's the reservoir. There are the pipes from the reservoir, which I presume are owned by Thames Water for many Lifers. The pipes go down your street and into your house. The water coms out of your tap. You pay Thames Water. They say thank you and shove your prices up next year in gratitude. So how exactly will a "competitor" be inserted into that flow? Not having a dig at you mate, by all means just send me a link to something about it; I'm really surprised I haven't picked this up before, as the water privatisation does my head in, and it's all over Europe thanks to the Brits pushing it in the early 90s.
I must admit, I am in the same boat as you. Surely you don't open things up for companies to make profits when you should be supplying something like water at cost after expenses to customers. I include eco investment in that.
Comments
Ofwat’s report suggests that reductions in customer bills are possible but likely to be small, especially in the short term. However, it says it could lead to innovation, improved customer service, new offers – including bundling of products such as energy and telecoms with water – and, crucially, give customers the freedom to choose their supplier – ending the final retail monopoly. Customer research suggests that 56% think having choice would be a good thing.
Ok so it's basically the same shit that they pulled with energy and telco. You could have your water "provided" by O2. Otherwise I'm struggling to imagine the "innovation", perhaps a separate tap for "sparkling", thus doing away with your Sodastream?
What a load of bollocks. Water is a crucial national strategic resource. There are numerous authorities warning that there will be "water wars" in some parts of the world. That may seem fanciful as you look out the window, but the UK has had more water restrictions than where I live in recent years, despite the drought conditions affecting most of Europe at the same time as the UK. So many people, so many power washes, sprinklers and private pools, in such a small island. Well you cannot as a business supplier easily increase the supply of this "product". You can't make it rain more. Fortunately. the storage of water can be increased, but that has to be a State undertaking. Reservoirs involve significant planning issues. A bit like HS2, only the State can and should invest in the infrastructure to maintain the supply of water. Which is why the end benefits of "competition" look like sod all, as Ofwat is struggling to conceal.
Torywash.
That's a good spin. Well done, the Tory government. You had most of us fooled on that one.