Westminster Politics

Status
Not open for further replies.
DavidDeSchmikes said:
Click to expand...


Did anyone expect anything different. I can imagine how it went:
Boris:
Well good morning.
We are here today not to come up with anything, but to give the plebs the impression that we are trying to do something for them.

Ok. Now we have got the business of the day over, lets all do what we have been doing all along.
Let's all get pissed up and play a few games.

And remember. Mums the word. No talking to the press or Dominic Cummings eh.....
 
Pexbo said:
In the last 16 years Scottish water has reduced leakage by almost 60%, sounds like excellent progress to me and seems to be outperforming the private companies by quite a margin.
Click to expand...
Fluctuation0161 said:
  • The report – "The Privatised Water Industry in the UK: An ATM for Investors" – shows that the 40% real increase in English water bills since privatisation in 1991 has not been due to higher investment, as claimed by OFWAT and the companies themselves, but is a result of ever higher interest payments on £47 billion of debt, accrued due to £50 billion paid in dividends to shareholders.
  • In Scotland, real bills are still the same as they were 17 years ago, whilst English bills have increased by over 16% in real terms over the same time period.
  • Publicly owned Scottish Water invests over one-third more on a per capita basis than the private English companies - £282 per household per year over the last 17 years, compared with only £210 per household per year in England - contradicting claims by the English companies and their regulator, OFWAT, that price rises in England have been due to high levels of investment.
  • Since 1991, the surplus money available to the English companies to pay dividends averaged £0.15 billion per year, but in every single year except 1995, the dividends actually paid to shareholders far averaging almost £2billion. The gap was bridged by borrowing year after year, building the £47billion debt mountain that exists today

https://www.gre.ac.uk/news/articles/public-relations/2018/privatised-water-failure#:~:text=Publicly owned Scottish Water invests,regulator, OFWAT, that price rises
Click to expand...

@sun_tzu can you reply to these points? I'm not well versed in this area and would like to know more
 
Badunk said:
So, I've been reading during the day and only watching the TV when it gets dark to minimise my electricity usage. They wanted to charge me £145 a month for my gas/leccy based on what I used last year but I was using a lot less due to my new habits, so I changed the direct debit to £88 because it was the minimum they allowed me to. I've used an average of £66 since March and am well under their 'estimate' of £126 but now they won't let me reduce the direct debit again and it's gone up to £101.

I'm nothing compared to the people I've seen on social media, though, some of whom have been getting bills of TWENTY THOUSAND POUNDS for their annual usage, based on their usage last year and these spiralling (upwards) price caps. And the fact that they are limiting what you can change your direct debits to, even if you take steps to reduce your usage, is going to lead either to mass payment defaulting or civil unrest.
Click to expand...

I don’t see how you can be classed as having defaulted on a payment if you are in the black, so to speak. If you didn’t pay your DD one month and yet had still paid for more than you had used I don’t quite see how they’d be able to threaten to call the debt collectors in.
 
Frosty said:
Click to expand...


Starmer will pounce on this and insist he’s willing to bail out all private utilities as long as they pinky promise to invest in something other than their shareholders.
 
Drifter said:
Click to expand...


Now ask them whether they would be happy to have a huge increase in their taxes to pay for taking over all of those private companies.
I already know what the answer is going to be.
It is a non starter.
 
Buster15 said:
Now ask them whether they would be happy to have a huge increase in their taxes to pay for taking over all of those private companies.
I already know what the answer is going to be.
It is a non starter.
Click to expand...

How much do you think it would cost?

How much would we save going forward?

I don't know the answer to those questions. But it seems pretty clear from what I have read, is that we've wasted many billions over the last 4 decades. The longer we wait to rectify Thatcher's mistakes, the more it will cost us all.
 
Flying high said:
How much do you think it would cost?

How much would we save going forward?

I don't know the answer to those questions. But it seems pretty clear from what I have read, is that we've wasted many billions over the last 4 decades. The longer we wait to rectify Thatcher's mistakes, the more it will cost us all.
Click to expand...

Like you, I have no real idea.
But one thing is pretty certain.
It would be significantly high and is not going to happen any time soon.
 
Jippy said:
Timing a coincidence of course.

Ministers planning to cut civil servant redundancy pay at same time as 91,000 jobs

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rvant-redundancy-pay-at-same-time-as-91k-jobs
Click to expand...
The current redundancy terms were negotiated in 2010 under former Tory minister Francis Maude. The proposal is for departing staff to get three weeks of pay for every year of service, down from the current month of pay. There would be a cap of 18 months of salary for voluntary redundancy and nine months for compulsory, down from the current 21 months and 12 months.

There would also be a minimum salary of £26,000 when calculating the redundancy payouts and an upper limit of £149,829.
Click to expand...

The proposals are still massively above legal requirements though - perhaps give members a vote accept the new terms or get what your legally entited to and not penny more - its tax payer money afterall so should we really be paying massively above legal requirements?

for comparison

Statutory redundancy pay
You’ll normally be entitled to statutory redundancy pay if you’re an employee and you’ve been working for your current employer for 2 years or more.
You’ll get:
  • half a week’s pay for each full year you were under 22
  • one week’s pay for each full year you were 22 or older, but under 41
  • one and half week’s pay for each full year you were 41 or older
Length of service is capped at 20 years.
Your weekly pay is the average you earned per week over the 12 weeks before the day you got your redundancy notice.
If you were paid less than usual because you were ‘on furlough’ because of coronavirus, your statutory redundancy pay is based on what you would have earned normally.
If you were made redundant on or after 6 April 2022, your weekly pay is capped at £571 and the maximum statutory redundancy pay you can get is £17,130. If you were made redundant before 6 April 2022, these amounts will be lower.
Click to expand...

https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights/redundancy-pay
 
sun_tzu said:
The proposals are still massively above legal requirements though - perhaps give members a vote accept the new terms or get what your legally entited to and not penny more - its tax payer money afterall so should we really be paying massively above legal requirements?
Click to expand...
Yes
 
A lot of people asking why Boris taking holidays now while he's still PM when he'll be free to do what he wants come September...

Because no doubt he has plans come September, probably in a media role. Tories will need him bullshitting loudly and often from the sidelines to give them a chance next GE. He'll likely be doing it with a view of returning to power.
 
Simbo said:
A lot of people asking why Boris taking holidays now while he's still PM when he'll be free to do what he wants come September...

Because no doubt he has plans come September, probably in a media role. Tories will need him bullshitting loudly and often from the sidelines to give them a chance next GE. He'll likely be doing it with a view of returning to power.
Click to expand...

Staying on also enables him to hand out government contracts to fund his wedding and holiday costs.
 
sun_tzu said:
The proposals are still massively above legal requirements though - perhaps give members a vote accept the new terms or get what your legally entited to and not penny more - its tax payer money afterall so should we really be paying massively above legal requirements?

for comparison



https://www.gov.uk/redundancy-your-rights/redundancy-pay
Click to expand...
Always looking out for the vulnerable eh @sun_tzu

Shouldn't we aim to treat employees better than the legal minimum?

Do you think it is fair for employees to have a policy in place for 12 years only for it to be changed months before it is actually going to be applied?
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Always looking out for the vulnerable eh @sun_tzu

Shouldn't we aim to treat employees better than the legal minimum?

Do you think it is fair for employees to have a policy in place for 12 years only for it to be changed months before it is actually going to be applied?
Click to expand...

Also over those 12 years civil servants have been suffering from 1% annual pay rises, well below inflation at the best of times, and an erosion of their pensions and other in work benefits. With the reason given that it was all done for the common good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.