Jump to content

Recommended Posts

mrwb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why do there seem to be so many burst water mains

> these days?

>

> I've lived in London 30 years odd and don't

> remember these continuous problems till 10 or more

> years agao.


Lack of investment from Thames water over the years due to paying the fat cats at the top more money equals failing infrastructure.

All of ED Grove is patches of repairs, the tarmac is dreadful for cyclists with lots of dangerous small potholes, speed humps not marked or painted regularly (although painted after an event on ED Grove), the pavement uneven and very bad for my disabled neighbour. The water pipes near the Dutch Estate break regularly. There has been very little care or investment in ED Grove, even the community garden we were told would stay, was destroyed


I see that some roads have new tarmac and new pavement ...guess which roads.

Our bit of southeast London has had significant residential development over the last twenty years or so. The demand for water has increased and the old infrastructure is not fit for purpose, particularly with increases in mains pressure to compensate for the increase in demand in what is a hilly area. Yes Thames Water want to deliver profits to their shareholders, but the infrastructure problem is a nightmare and all they can do is patch it. There's no indication that pre-privatisation Thames Water was going to confront the issue either.
Privatising an essential service such as clean water delivery was always a way to make very rich people richer, never about providing the service. It's time to nationalise and I don't mean the old way, a modern nationally owned company....and transport...and gas and electricity. But for now Thames water need to be told by Southwark to put down new pipes along the whole length of ED Grove.

nivag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> mrwb Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Why do there seem to be so many burst water

> mains

> > these days?

> >

> > I've lived in London 30 years odd and don't

> > remember these continuous problems till 10 or

> more

> > years agao.

>

> Lack of investment from Thames water over the

> years due to paying the fat cats at the top more

> money equals failing infrastructure.


Actually backwards - investment while Thames Water was public sector was woefully poor. One of the conditions of privatisation price increases was that there would be massive increase in infrastructure investment and minimum spend year on year - regardless of how much "fat cats" are being spent.


Privatisation of monopolies is generally a rubbish idea but under investment in water and sanitation infrastructure in London is evidence of the opposite argument!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...