House of Lords Committee - Water bills should rise to limit consumption.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

All you are doing here is being a monumental hypocrite.

You have constantly gone on about how great that report is, and how credible the committee that wrote it is, but now a similar committee wants to raise your water bills you are up in arms!!!:rotfl:

I'll humour you.

Hardly up in arms am I!? I'm discussing water pipes and beautiful architecture. I've not even hinted at moaning about water prices or the rise. Just saying they could invest with their own profits, as per other companies.

The report that I used, as clapton stated ISN'T from the same people. I know you "don't care" about this little snippet of information, and can see that you are still finding it difficult to contain your excitement at the prospect at tripping me up.

But....you haven't done so. As I said, the 10 or so times you've mentioned that I used a report once from the same people (even though I haven't), shows your depseration and nothing much else.

Dunno how I can be a hyprocrite when I've not so much as even talked about the report itself. I have only talked about your nonsense about comparing it to houses, and water pipes connecting Birmingham to the Ellan Valley.

spacey2012

Politicians use a two tier statement approach.

The Truth : water bills should rise
and an excuse
To cut consumption.

The first line is truth, the second is waffle.

They dont care what happens to consumption as on its own that statement means nothing . To actual means should or may "To do this" so is a resulting statement of what may happen intentionally or not.
Truthspeak about sums them up.

What they really mean is, water bills should rise because we are shareholders and will get more money.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham, the Lords committee said...

“urgent action is required” to protect the availability and quality of water in the UK and other European countries.

And you said....

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not that I'm sure we have a resource shortage. .

Which is weird.

Because you have previously quoted as gospel the output from a different Lords committee.

Going to great lengths to promote how credible it must be because "it's from parliament".

Graham_Devon wrote: »

if parliament itself is not a good enough source for you I don't know what is.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

the parliament document suggests I shouldn't be wasting my time.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's from Parliament, but it doesn't count, and I have confirmation bias? .

:rotfl:

But now they want to raise your water bill, so of course this time you're "not sure".

:rotfl:

Generali

It seems obvious to me: charge for water by the pint. There is no good reason for the increased use of water to be free even if the average price remains the same.

People with big gardens should have water tanks attached to their house for example. They don't because there's zero incentive to do it.

It makes no difference that water is essential: any scarce resource should be charged on a marginal basis. How you provide for 'poor' people (there are basically no actually poor people in the UK except those there by choice or mental health problems) is an entirely separate argument.

PS The UK is wet on average but the SE, where people live, is dry. London gets half the rainfall of Sydney for example. If you want to move water from the wet bit to the populated bit you'd best work out a way to pay for it 'cos the money tree is bare.