Search results

thank you for the assist. the issue highlighted was bills going up double the rate of inflation. that pieces states publically owned Scottish Water saves their customers only 14%. so they still went up well above inflation. i am not saying what you think im saying, that privatisation makes it...

i didnt, if no dividend was paid you'd still have a substantial rise in bills to cover the investment. the point wasnt about ownership, water is not suitable to be privately owned. its about acknowledging investment costs, and that cost gets passed on somewhere.

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...

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.

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...

they did vote for the amendment, with many clauses about reducing storm overflow discharge, removing one clause. i think that was thrid reading so bill is passed.

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.