Perpetuating the crisis Tuesday 8 May 2012  Proof, if any was needed, that water policy is being driven by consumer need comes with this reporton water leakage, retailed originally by the Guardian. We are told, on the one hand, that almost a quarter of the entire country's four billion gallon water supply – around 750 million gallons (3.4 billion litres) – is disappearing from the system every day because companies have failed to stop leaks. Yet, on the other hand, in the midst of widespread water shortages, with 20 million customers subject to restrictions, the water regulator Ofwat is not proposing to tighten leak targets, even though that, in itself, will exacerbate the leakage problem. The issue here is quite straightforward. To solve with the supply deficit, two obvious things are required – to increase storage capacity (which is needed to cope with the eleven percent increase in population) – and reduce leakage. We have already seen how water industry plans for increased storage capacity have been blocked by government, which leaves leakage reduction as the only short-term strategy to enable supplies to be maintained, and now this is not to be pursued. Shadow water minister Gavin Shuker, we learn, has condemned the decision, as one might expect – although the Labour administration has had its part to play in blocking storage capacity enhancements. Shuker asserts that there are "vested interests at play", noting that, "It costs more to repair leaks than the immediate value of the water itself". It thus makes sense, he says, for water company to ignore leaks, even if it doesn't stack up in the long term for us, the consumers, or for our environment. This, however, is missing an altogether different point. Where leakage rates are so high, on top of an already increased demand, companies have to increase pressure in order to maintain flow rates. This in turn increases the stress on an already aging infrastructure, adding to the already unacceptable failure rate. It is, thus, not even in the longer term interest of the water companies to permit such a high leakage rate, and it certainly does not help the consumer to have a situation where the entire storage capacity is drained every 700 days, owing to leakage, before even a single gallon of water is actually used. But what it does do is maintain the atmosphere of perpetual crisis, thereby apparently legitimise the consumption reduction agenda which forms the main element of current government policy. And there we have it. By sitting on its hands over storage capacity, and now leakage rates, the government can easily sustain the crisis atmosphere, then pushing for higher prices – ostensibly to finance supply improvements but in fact to incentivise water "efficiency" measures and thus drive down end of pipe withdrawals, otherwise known as consumption. And pay we do. The average annual customer bill for water has risen by £64 since 2001 and is now £376, while the companies collectively made £2 billion in pre-tax profits and paid £1.5 billion in dividends to shareholders in 2010-11. For government, is a classic example of exploiting the "beneficial crisis", but in this case the administration is going one step further, actually creating the crisis, a totally artificial crisis, in order to promote its preferred solution. Cynical, does not even begin to describe it, but that is now the way our masters play the game. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 08/05/2012 |
Not buying it Tuesday 8 May 2012 The legacy media likes nothing better than a spat, and if one doesn't exist, it has been known to invent one. With Hollande barely having had time to down a celebratory drink, therefore, we have the Wail and various others rubbing their proverbial hands in glee at the prospect of a Franco-German dust-up. Bruno Waterfield, for instance, is having a good run at it, and much of what he writes is plausible. However, we've seen this sort of thing before. But when push comes to shove, France and Germany have always buried their differences in the interests of European unity. If there ever was a serious fracture in the Franco-German axis, it would be the beginning of the end for le projet, and I don't see that happening just yet. Like any politician, what Hollande said about the fiscal pact in order to get elected, and what he does about it once elected, will be two very different things. He and Merkel may have to go through a ritual dance before he rows back, but this is very different from the terminal row that some media sources are projecting. Thus, I'm not buying the idea that we're into a major tussle between Merkel and Hollande. It may be happening, it could happen, but I'd like to see a bit more evidence that this is anything more than political theatre, before I get too excited. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 08/05/2012 |
What did the majority want? Monday 7 May 2012 Davies, we are told, said that Johnson's success "showed that the voters still wanted traditional conservative policies". But, of the 16.8 percent the electorate who actually voted for Boris, how many "wanted traditional conservative policies" … and how many so wanted to make sure that Ken Livingstone did not get elected that they would have voted for the devil himself to stop him? And what about the 83.2 percent who didn't vote for Boris. What did this majority want? COMMENT: "POLITICAL SYSTEM ON TRIAL" THREAD Richard North 07/05/2012 |
Posts
