1001 reasons NEVER to vote TORY

[Jabberwocky]

"We need water - there are no alternatives "

Actually in years gone by, when clean water was not on tap, people used to drink beer instead of water.

and what's beer made out of dipsh*t ?

[Mordac]

In those days it was made from water from Artesian wells - the wells dictated where the breweries were situated. He said "water on tap" which was more difficult to facilitate, and mostly came from river sources, hence the high rate of diseases like cholera in 18th century London.

Edited to change beer into water. (Feck me, wrong miracle... )

[hyperD]

and supply is limited because there is a limited supply of rain.

You are kidding right? Tell me you're just winding people up?

[Jabberwocky]

Mm if supply is unlimited why are there hosepipe bans in kent ? Where do you think water comes from ?

[Xerxes]

Ar*sehole - out of a population of 60 million that under 0.5% growth - small for business growth - and supply is limited because there is a limited supply of rain. FFS people - try harder !

Now look, chap, I don't know you and you don't know me. I'm providing some factual input into an interesting debate so there's no need to get abusive about it.

You may say that adding a medium sized city to the UK each year "doesn't count", but it clearly does because the growth is not uniformly spread over the country but concentrated in certain urban areas and clearly does increase demand in those areas greatly.

As to supply being limited because there is a fixed amount of rainfall, I think that is not correct as we clearly do not drink or in other ways utilise 100% of the rain that falls on UK.

I think the original proposition stands, that neither supply nor demand are fixed in the water market.

[Mordac]

>Mm if supply is unlimited why are there hosepipe bans in kent ?

Because more than a third of water is lost in the system to leakages etc. Apparently this is acceptable to the water companies, since they just adjust their charges upwards accordingly. I heard a water industry chap on the radio recently say that losses used to be over 50%, and they are making progress so that's alright then.
There is no need for hosepipe bans, they could just buy water in from elsewhere (Scotland, for example, where the rain is continuous and usually horizontal, even in July ) but they probably assume it's better to restrict supply (we're so used to it by now) than to put up the prices. It's a PR excercise, in summary.

[Jabberwocky]

Now look, chap, I don't know you and you don't know me. I'm providing some factual input into an interesting debate so there's no need to get abusive about it.

You may say that adding a medium sized city to the UK each year "doesn't count", but it clearly does because the growth is not uniformly spread over the country but concentrated in certain urban areas and clearly does increase demand in those areas greatly.

As to supply being limited because there is a fixed amount of rainfall, I think that is not correct as we clearly do not drink or in other ways utilise 100% of the rain that falls on UK.

I think the original proposition stands, that neither supply nor demand are fixed in the water market.

Nonsense - demand is increasing gradually which increases prices. The point is if demand never decreases there is no incentive to improve efficiency or cut costs - the water company is guaranteed income. No free market works that way. And supply is certainly limited in that water comes from reservoirs that have fixed capacity. Building reservoirs in urban areas is extremely expensive if not impossible.

[Mordac]

Nonsense - demand is increasing gradually which increases prices. The point is if demand never decreases there is no incentive to improve efficiency or cut costs - the water company is guaranteed income. No free market works that way. And supply is certainly limited in that water comes from reservoirs that have fixed capacity. Building reservoirs in urban areas is extremely expensive if not impossible.

Are you an idiot? (rhetorical question)
The water companies are legally bound to use the extra revenues to invest in the system. The new London ring main for example. Go and look it up.

[Jabberwocky]

Are you an idiot? (rhetorical question)
The water companies are legally bound to use the extra revenues to invest in the system. The new London ring main for example. Go and look it up.

And who decides what is "extra revenue" numpty ? If the water companies are a perfect exmaple of privatisation why aren't they investing to improve all those leaks .... hint: remember what I said about fixed demand.

Look privatisation works well in a free and populated market where the consumer has choice. No amount of legislation by government is going to turn the water industry into a free market. It's a pig's ear.

[mcquiggd]

Its always funny when a leftie turns to abuse... (although probably self abuse has been inflicted for some time now)... a clear sign he is losing it.