As long as the shareholders don't suffer.

[BoldonLad]

Osborne's "sugar tax" began life as a petition I believe.

That is a little different, IMHO, what a gift, politicians being ASKED by the public (or a section thereof) to introduce/increase a tax, I bet they could not believe their luck. 😂

 

[Psamathe]

Has any petition ever managed any meaningful action past being debated?
I think they like to give the public the impression that they can be involved, and nothing more than that impression.

Maybe a way to express a view to more MPs than your own MP (who may just ignore your letter)? I used to fairly regularly write to my previous (Conservative) MP who would ignore constituents and vote as his party leader daid to vote.

They could also have a negative impact eg start a petition for eg "improve cyclist safety at roundabouts" and het just 23 signatures tells MPs it's not an issue for them to spend time considering.

 

[Pblakeney]

Osborne's "sugar tax" began life as a petition I believe.

Fair enough. The exception that proves the rule? (I never understood that phrase ) Does that mean Jamie Oliver deserves credit?
PS - AI said it wasn't the result of a petition. So much for AI.

 

[AndyRM]

Fair enough. The exception that proves the rule? (I never understood that phrase ) Does that mean Jamie Oliver deserves credit?
PS - AI said it wasn't the result of a petition. So much for AI.

I could be misremembering, but I thought it began as a petition, got ignored as they usually do, and then there was a levy on sugar as part of the budget. Or something.

Jamie Oliver irritates me intensely, so he gets credit for nothing. Ever.

 

[Pblakeney]

I could be misremembering, but I thought it began as a petition, got ignored as they usually do, and then there was a levy on sugar as part of the budget. Or something.

Jamie Oliver irritates me intensely, so he gets credit for nothing. Ever.

The source of my reply - https://foodactive.org.uk/the-sugar-tax-has-arrived-but-how-did-we-get-here/

 

[Psamathe]

Can somebody explain to me how "the Government cannot afford the investment needed to adequate sort out sewage systems".

Ultimately we (the public) are paying for it, either through our water bills or through Government taxation. And we're not only paying for the needed works but interest on the borrowing to carry out those works. ie shareholders are going to expect to be repair with more than bank interest rate (otherwise they'd be putting their monety into Halifax Building Society accounts.

Government can borrow far cheaper than all but bankrupt water companies so pay through Government means we'll ultimately be paying less. And paid through taxation means those already financially struggling are not hit so badly.

 

[Pblakeney]

Can somebody explain to me how "the Government cannot afford the investment needed to adequate sort out sewage systems".

Ultimately we (the public) are paying for it, either through our water bills or through Government taxation. And we're not only paying for the needed works but interest on the borrowing to carry out those works. ie shareholders are going to expect to be repair with more than bank interest rate (otherwise they'd be putting their monety into Halifax Building Society accounts.

Government can borrow far cheaper than all but bankrupt water companies so pay through Government means we'll ultimately be paying less. And paid through taxation means those already financially struggling are not hit so badly.

The government is not only broke, it is only surviving by increasing debt.
They could increase taxes to cover the cost of all that should be done but it would require a vast increase and the public wouldn't stand for it.

 

[Psamathe]

The government is not only broke, it is only surviving by increasing debt.
They could increase taxes to cover the cost of all that should be done but it would require a vast increase and the public wouldn't stand for it.

But to me, would I prefer £100 extra to Government to cover water improvements or £120 direct to the Water Companies for exactly the same without accountability but with added mega salaries and bonuses for the bosses. I'd prefer pay the lower amount.

 

[Pblakeney]

But to me, would I prefer £100 extra to Government to cover water improvements or £120 direct to the Water Companies for exactly the same without accountability but with added mega salaries and bonuses for the bosses. I'd prefer pay the lower amount.

That is logical thinking.
You won't get the choice, nor the improvements. (Says Eeyore) Get back to me in another 18 years and let me know. 😉

 

[BoldonLad]

But to me, would I prefer £100 extra to Government to cover water improvements or £120 direct to the Water Companies for exactly the same without accountability but with added mega salaries and bonuses for the bosses. I'd prefer pay the lower amount.

I would expect that almost everyone would prefer the lower cost, but, perhaps, many people do not trust Government to actually deliver the lower cost promised?, that is not to say that Private Enterprise can be universally trusted to deliver on their promises.

 

[Psamathe]

I would expect that almost everyone would prefer the lower cost, but, perhaps, many people do not trust Government to actually deliver the lower cost promised?, that is not to say that Private Enterprise can be universally trusted to deliver on their promises.

Maybe another failure of our politicians. Failure to explain, failure to ring-fence budgets or maybe just/additionally track record.

The difficulty they face is that the public increasingly don't trust the private water companies, increasingly want our open sewers turned back into rivers, etc. Just tweaking a bit of regulation (like Starmer thought was enough) isn't accepted as enough.

 

[BoldonLad]

Maybe another failure of our politicians. Failure to explain, failure to ring-fence budgets or maybe just/additionally track record.

The difficulty they face is that the public increasingly don't trust the private water companies, increasingly want our open sewers turned back into rivers, etc. Just tweaking a bit of regulation (like Starmer thought was enough) isn't accepted as enough.

IMHO, the weakness in the Water Industry is the Environment Agency.

 

[Dorset Boy]

The Government would just appoint Crapita to make it all much, much worse,

 

[Pross]

Can somebody explain to me how "the Government cannot afford the investment needed to adequate sort out sewage systems".

Ultimately we (the public) are paying for it, either through our water bills or through Government taxation. And we're not only paying for the needed works but interest on the borrowing to carry out those works. ie shareholders are going to expect to be repair with more than bank interest rate (otherwise they'd be putting their monety into Halifax Building Society accounts.

Government can borrow far cheaper than all but bankrupt water companies so pay through Government means we'll ultimately be paying less. And paid through taxation means those already financially struggling are not hit so badly.

Why should the Government be spending money fixing the issue for private companies and their shareholders? The shareholders have been paid billions over the years. I know they did it for banks but they really had no option there. The real question is how the privatisation was dealt with that allowed profits to be taken without the required works being carried out for so long.

 

[briantrumpet]

Why should the Government be spending money fixing the issue for private companies and their shareholders? The shareholders have been paid billions over the years. I know they did it for banks but they really had no option there. The real question is how the privatisation was dealt with that allowed profits to be taken without the required works being carried out for so long.

Especially as one of the pretexts for privatisation was so the new companies could raise the funds to modernise the sewerage system, which was also the pretext for post-privatisation bill increases. Yeah, right.