Water management

On a recent visit to environmental and  river works in my constituency, I was asked if I knew about total water catchment management.  It was presented as some new breakthrough, based on understandings of the patterns of water movement. Apparently it includes the perceptions that you need to manage water on a water basin basis, and that you need to consider what happens to the water if you speed its passage upstream to avoid flooding when that water arrives more quickly downstream.

I expressed surprise at this.  Water has always been managed on a water catchment area basis since I have been involved in public policy. Our water companies were designed around water basins. There have been few attempts to transfer water from one catchment to another. The most famous was the decision to supply Birmingham from new reservoirs in Mid Wales, which caused controversy. Debates about creating a national water grid have not resulted in the creation of one.

I would also have thought it had been well understood by past generations of managers that if you solved the problem of flooding by improving capacity to move the water on upstream you could do more damage downstream unless you also made provision there for fast transit or storage of excess.

It is  true that much of the rain falls in the more lightly populated parts of the north and west of our country, whilst more people live in the drier south and east. There is some movement of water to those places by the Thames and other rivers,  but the south has had to build reservoirs for storage on a considerable scale and has put in desalination capacity as well to have sufficient water. It is important to recognise the need for more water capacity in the south and decide which is the best  value and best environmental means of providing that capacity. The UK overall is  not short of water and overall gets plenty of rain. There remain important issues about supplying enough drinking quality water during dry periods in the drier heavily populated parts. More water storage is one answer. More water transfer would be another.


Meanwhile water management is crucial to controlling flood risk. Given the extent of building on flood plain, it is becoming ever more necessary to engineer solutions to safe water transport and storage during times of heavy rainfall.


  1. Herr Tapwasser
    September 24, 2017

    Spare capacity in water for London. I believe Boris got a desalination plant ready to kick into action if and when required. Of course building massive over capacity is rather stupid since everyone knows it is the Conservative Party’s aspiration to cut immigration. So why waste such money? Anyone would think that despite weekly confirmations to the contrary the government was expecting company, is expecting company, and will expect company.

    1. Lifelogic
      September 24, 2017

      We could always desalinate, but it is expensive, uses a lot of energy and should not be needed with properly management. The dry/drought summers predicted by the climate alarmists have not materialised – rather like all the alarmist’s other predictions.

    2. bigneil
      September 24, 2017

      ” Conservative Party’s aspiration to cut immigration. So why waste such money? ” Two laughs in one post. Brilliant. – cut immigration ? – Both main parties have NO wish to do anything – cuts to Police, cuts to council services etc – but ALWAYS money to hand out free lives for new arrivals to do nothing. – waste money ? – -isn’t that what govts do?
      Love the name Tapwasser by the way.

  2. M Eaudecoupup
    September 24, 2017

    Nestlé which owns Perrier mineral water could, if we can spanner Mrs May off the screwed up EU, start producing the stuff here. It is named after a doctor not a place. The water is re-mineralised and re-carbonised after boiling. We can do that.

    1. Roy Grainger
      September 24, 2017

      One time while on business I drove past the source of Perrier water – it is an unprepossessing industrial estate in the South of France – it is a triumph of marketing to be able to sell the stuff at elevated prices. Recently while on litter collection duty on the Thames foreshore I found that the biggest proportion of discarded plastic bottles were for still mineral water, an entirely superfluous product.

      1. M Eaudecoupup
        September 25, 2017

        ” ….still mineral water, an entirely superfluous product….” I have to agree. Most places, not all, depends on what you are accustomed to, have pretty good tap water, certainly cleaner than bottled water.. You can fit or have fitted a cheap filter too if necessary. I might do it as I don’t like the taste and smell of chlorine whatever the alleged health benefits.

  3. Bryan Harris
    September 24, 2017

    Let’s hope that now includes dredging of rivers – something we were forbidden to do by idiotic EU rules, and the reason we had so many towns under water after a heavy rainfall.

    Yes, it’s time we had real plans for water, that takes in the whole country – Should be part of our BLUEPRINT for the future.

    1. Lifelogic
      September 24, 2017

      Indeed. Sound Engineers please and no green crap priests and loons.

    2. Dame Rita Webb
      September 24, 2017

      I do not think dredging has been banned as it has certainly taken place in the river that flooded our town centre in both 2009 and 2015. However I really question the actions of the Environment Agency. Its so obvious to see that it is the bends in the river that obstruct the flow of water to sea. As the river takes a turn, its banks are washed away and the adjoining fields flooded. The EA then tell the local farmers that they cannot use this land in future as it is now “toxic”. They refuse to “straighten” the river and rely instead on building flood defences in the town. However those built in response to the 2009 floods failed miserably in 2015. That is despite the later floods being far less intense. As an example if you stood in the town centre in 2009, at its max level the water would have went over your head, while in 2015 it would have barely reached your knees. Its the EA not the EU that needs a good shake up.

    3. M.W.Browne
      September 24, 2017

      We should not turn rivers into canals. I wish to continue salmon and trout fishing on nice rivers and in nice surroundings.
      If houses are to be built on flood plains, they should be built with a floodable concrete shell ground floor, with living areas on the 1st and 2nd floors. Otherwise, house owners must just accept that they will be flooded every so often.

  4. Lifelogic
    September 24, 2017

    Indeed it is all well understood by engineers and just needs sensible planning and engineering. There is also much scope for water saving by using grey water a second time for flushing loos.

    Water is quite expensive enough already with proper management and the right incentives the water companies should be able to plan and provide without the need for any summer water restrictions.

    Kahn might fall fowl of race discrimination laws it seems. He is certainly making himself very unpopular what a fool he is. Over half a million have signed the UBER petition already. Banning Uber for “safely” reason will clearly make thing far far less safe as walking is about 18 times more dangerous than going by car. If they have concerns about some particular drivers then TfL should not give them licences – why blame UBER it is a booking and payment scheme.


    1. Anonymous
      September 24, 2017

      8 million Londoners have not signed the Uber petition.

      1. Lifelogic
        September 25, 2017

        Well they should do!

    2. Anonymous
      September 24, 2017


      The EU will reject the reasonable offer while the World is watching.

      Mrs May has told the civil service to prepare for no deal.

    3. stred
      September 25, 2017

      I think I have realised why TfL and Khan have suddenly decided to put all the UBER drivers out of business. Khan has been implementing the ULEZ ban on diesel taxis from next year. They plan to introduce the new hybrid electric taxi. This will have a petrol engine which produces NO2 but can also be charged up at the few charging points, if taxi drivers can wait long enough. It will of course also produce CO2 at the tailpipe and at the power station. It is however called a zero emission taxi and, by the way, costs £56,600.

      They plan to enable taxi drivers to pay for one by a £7500 grant and very low interest loan costing £170 pcm. It is argued that this is will be cheaper by saving fuel than a new diesel taxi costing £160 pcm. However, with bike lane congestion, taxis are already going out of the trade and hybrids are no more efficient than a modern diesel, so fuel will not cost much less. Also, most leased taxis are older vehicles which cost much less and are much more common. In other words, Khan’s plans will cost a fortune and taxis will be unable to compete with much cheaper secondhand Prius hybrids unless these are banned. The truth has dawned on these idealistic dimwits in the Mayor’s office and they are panicking. Just a theory to be denied with maximum BS as it hits the fan.

      1. Lifelogic
        September 25, 2017

        Sound very likely to me – “idealistic dimwits in the Mayor’s office” and indeed all over the place.

  5. Lifelogic
    September 24, 2017

    Jacob Rees-Mogg words on Newsnight are as below. He is surely quite right though rather understated. May’s speech was a disaster. May surely must go if only because she is an electoral liability also her green crap, socialist, EU cave in agenda is misguided and will never work.

    ‘I have three concerns about the speech, the first is free movement which ought to end at the end of March 2019 and I think it is about the question of the Home Office’s competence actually, because it hasn’t done very well with dealing with illegal immigrants so far. The question for the Home Office is can it be ready in time to do the job properly? I think that it ought to be and I think that is a challenge for the Home Secretary”
    The other area I’m concerned about is that we should be promising money before we know the other side of the deal. They want money, we want trade. For us to be guaranteeing money, which the speech practically does, so early on, concerns me considerable.
    And the third point that concerns me is that it hasn’t been made clear whether in this implementation period we will still be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. To my mind that is a red line.’

    1. Peter Wood
      September 24, 2017

      LL, hasn’t it been fun reading so many opinions, the one from the German MEP Manfred Weber was about the same as mine! We are leaving the EU on 29 June 2019, but are we trying to remain in the single market? If we are no longer in the EU how can we legally pay to the EU budget? It seems Mr. Davis has/will confirm ECJ jurisdiction ends on 29 March 2019; did Mrs May say that? The questions are endless.
      My question to our host is, what does the 1922 Committee think about this? What action if any do they propose to make to the Party?
      Either Mrs May is a very clever negotiator or we have a rather confused person at No. 10.

    2. Jason Wells
      September 24, 2017

      One thing you’re forgetting about here is the Irish Border- it’s like the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about because leaving the Customs Union will cause such a huge problem.

    3. Dame Rita Webb
      September 24, 2017

      You can get a rid of Mrs May but she will be replaced with another doctrinaire believer in crony capitalist neo lib economics. Its nearly ten years of ZIRP and its obvious we have been taken on a road to nowhere. There will be no change until the final blow out and then its questionable as to whether then the UK will remain a parliamentary democracy. It should be obvious by now to even somebody with “o” level history that when you have had a continual period of weak and corrupt governments change is imminent and it is not always for the better.

    4. Bryan Harris
      September 24, 2017

      Good points

      …and no we do not want to be tied to the EU in any way – IMVHO the EU can do nothing for us, that we cannot do better, and that includes all the little clubs that Ms May seems so keen on.

    5. Glenn Vaughan
      September 24, 2017

      What has this posting to do with water management?

      Yet another robotic cut and paste message from “Lifelogic” which is irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

      It’s no surprise that John has to remind people intermittently about the criteria for posting on this website.

    6. Dennis Zoff
      September 24, 2017

      Thank you Lifelogic, for bringing the debate back to the current overriding issue!

      In my previous comment, “The government needs to press on with the No Deal option” I politely asked JR to “stop stamping on the ants and letting the Elephants through! This current posting (Water Management) is a case in point and reminds me of that old adage…

      “when you are up to your a s s in alligators, it is difficult to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp”

      Water conservation/management is an important issue, but in the current light of Brexit, is politically diminished in its importance….for now at least! Can we please remain focused on the most important issue for the past forty years, with all our energies, thank you, John.

      Incidentally, I do remember when out of the tap, drinking water, was the norm in the UK and very good. French bottling companies (Perrier in particular) appeared on the scene, as did the overseas utility companies snapping up our water companies, and our Tap drinking water quality dropped….any connection/coincidence John!

      I have never once naively believed the UK goverment, past and present, had the UK public’s interests at heart!

    7. Denis Cooper
      September 24, 2017

      Theresa May’s Florence speech could have been a lot worse, at least she has not gone back on too much of what she said in her Lancaster House speech.


      On the other hand during the eight months since that earlier speech Keir Starmer and others in the Labour party have been successful in gradually nudging Jeremy Corbyn closer and closer to saying that we should not leave the EU.

      Despite foolishly losing her overall majority in an unnecessary general election I think Theresa May will still be able to get the required Brexit legislation through the Commons even if the Labour MPs are whipped to vote against it, but that will not be the case for the unelected legislators-for-life in the House of Lords.

      Thus it may become of paramount importance that the government can generate sufficient public pressure on the Lords not to defy both the people voting directly in the referendum and their elected representatives in the Commons. The way that the propaganda war is being lost at present leads me to think that the public may well be swayed to support the Lords if they tried to block Brexit.

      1. Denis Cooper
        September 24, 2017


        “Labour should commit to staying in the single market and customs union”

        And that’s PERMANENTLY, not just during a two year transition.

        So how many of those who voted Labour in the last election want what these people want, a continuation of the uncontrolled and unlimited immigration from the EU? I guess it might be about one in five at most.

      2. Iago
        September 24, 2017

        May’s Florence speech really is far worse than you think. Take a look at http://www.facts4eu.org today Sunday, A Treaty Too Far. I urge other readers to do the same. With May’s proposed deep and broad agreements on diplomacy, defence, “security” and foreign aid we will not have any independence. Sounds like exaggeration? read it.

        1. Denis Cooper
          September 25, 2017

          I always read that, but I don’t always agree with everything it says!

    8. Ian Wragg
      September 24, 2017

      Luckily we have Nigel who is considering returning to the fray. This is just what is needed especially as Corbyn is promising an everlasting transition phase. 17.4 million people are going to be potential followers after the stitch up proposed by May.

  6. alan jutson
    September 24, 2017

    Amazing how simple physics and engineering solutions can be made to sound so complicated by long words and lengthy explanations.

    Seems like those who are in charge of so many projects these days believe that simply by renaming the title, they believe they are offering a new solution.

    Water flows down hill and finds its own level through least resistance, if you want it to flow uphill you have to pump it, if you want to store it you need to build catchment areas or reservoirs, its been the same for centuries and is unlikely to change, no matter what they call it.

  7. hefner
    September 24, 2017

    The natural variability of the UK climate makes change in the total water available to the country hard to detect.
    Only a slight increase in temperature has been detected over the British Isles over the past 50 years, with more autumn/winter rainfall usually falling in more intense events, with somewhat drier summers.
    Management of reservoirs and lakes seems to become harder if the number of reports on the topics by various agencies and universities is taken as a proof of an emerging problem. Ensuring availability of drinking quality water to all parts of Britain all year round might indeed require better use of water and financial resources.

    On a related point, managing precipitation water after heavy downpours in towns like Reading looks rather inadequate, seemingly because of the very old (Victorian?) underground drainage system, which, with heavier such events, is worse with Thames Water than it was with the pre-80s public water system.

  8. stred
    September 24, 2017

    An Ostrich which sticks his head in the sand in a flood will drown.

  9. agricola
    September 24, 2017

    The problems of having too much or too little water at times have been debated, solutions offered, only to be met with inertia. If government is not willing to act they carry the responsibility for the consequences. What is it about politicians that diverts them from the simple actions that avoid disaster and improve the lives of those they profess to lead, but draws them to the Barnum and Bailey projects like the Dome and HS2.

    More important is the EU reaction to the Florence speech, and whether in the face of continued intransigence our government is prepared to say no to yet more time wasting prevarication. Cameron got nothing, returned and tried to sell it. We wised up and Cameron is history. Time for tough decision making, but does this government have the guts for such. No sign so far.

  10. paulW
    September 24, 2017

    Totally agree

  11. Bert Young
    September 24, 2017

    ” Water water everywhere and not a drop to drink ” ; re-distributing resources is , surely , a rational and sensible way to go – whether it’s uphill or downhill . A dam built in Wales and a reservoir constructed in Lancashire are both funded from the public purse ; surely it is in all our interests to share . Moving water around is one of the most straightforward things to achieve . The South East of the country is drier than the North West – this factor will not change .

  12. The Prangwizard
    September 24, 2017

    Back in around 2010 after the village in which I live was flooded for another year we had a meeting with a representative from the county council. He completely misjudged us and misunderstood why he was there. He bragged that in the past few years he had underspent his budget at which point he was almost lynched so to speak.

    We wanted to know why he hadn’t been keeping the watercourses clear, blockages being the blindingly obvious reason for the.flooding. It was bean-counter management, people who love their desks their coffee mugs and their spreadsheets instead of making decisions based on observation of the practicalities around them.

  13. margaret
    September 24, 2017

    It may be the way that it is done , but to me it sounds upside down, . Surely it wold be better to allow the water to go somewhere downstream rather than delaying the problem. Man made tributaries to be opened in times of potential flooding seems a good idea. I prefer to follow the ways where nature finds a solution, but I am not an expert.

    1. alan jutson
      September 24, 2017


      The so called experts have now been proven to be non experts, but your view has some sound logic to it as long as we tap into the water flow to extract and store what we need whilst its on its way.

      1. margaret
        September 25, 2017

        I suppose it depends whether it would be used for preventing flooding where it could be ox bowed , or if it was to be used; then could be reserved to supply the lower areas,; but my initial thought was to prevent those scenes of flooding.

  14. formula57
    September 24, 2017

    “I expressed surprise at this.” – thereby demonstrating a commendable restraint!

    Does whoever told you know about total without catchphrase management? It is aimed at doing the job without hiding behind and getting lost in jargon: it is very new of course.

  15. Lifelogic
    September 24, 2017

    The unworkable NHS gets even worse.

    The number of patients who have been kept waiting in A&E for more than 12 hours in England has soared by 10,546 per cent in five years, figures show.

    Quarterly performance figures from NHS England show that in January to March of this year, 1,597 patients waited for over 12 hours to be admitted, compared with just 15 patients in 2012.

    Yet they close down Uber on grounds of “safety”! The NHS is killing thousands and failing millions. It can never work efficiently as currently structured and financed. What are the government doing about it?

    1. Lifelogic
      September 24, 2017

      Another kick it into the long grass approach it seems.

      1. Anonymous
        September 24, 2017

        How come Cypriots pay less for their water than we do ?

        Oops ! Sorry, Lifelogic. I brought the discussion back on topic by mistake.

    2. McBryde
      September 24, 2017

      There’s plenty of fairly convincing anecdotal evidence that the NHS is being made inefficient and unpopular to prepare the ground for the introduction of US style insurance-style medical services.

  16. agricola
    September 24, 2017

    On the question of the future registration of EU citizens who work or retire in the UK there appears to be some confusion. This might be something new and long overdue in the UK, but in Spain for instance it is the norm. When I arrived ten years ago and bought a house I had to have a registration number, obtained from the police in Benidorm. For some time it consisted of a plastic card which authority abandoned in favour of a n A4 size certificate. It’s use goes way beyond buying property and vehicles, I even get asked for my registration number when receiving a parcel from the Correos at my front door. It should therefore not be an issue when proposed in the UK because of the precedent here in Spain. Pass this information on to David Davies who might not be aware of the fact.

    1. stred
      September 25, 2017

      We also have to register in Holland and Sweden. Mrs May’s decision not to register EU citizens previously was probably to avoid knowing the true number. The change of policy is an attempt to bamboozle us into thinking that she is being a tough negotiator. Who does she think she is kidding…

  17. Lifelogic
    September 24, 2017

    Corbyn (just now on Marr). I see we have a “fantastic” wind farm in the sea off Brighton’s beach. Last time I flew over Brighton I saw about a hundred of them – and all seemed to be stationary for some reason – even though it was windy. They are fantastically pointless, fantastically intermittent, fantastically expensive, produce fantastically little electricity and are a fantastic illustration of the power of religion & politics over logic, reason and rational economics and engineering.

    They are a huge drain on the tax payer and the energy bill payer. They kill jobs, they kill productivity and kill the UK’s ability to compete in the World.

    1. stred
      September 25, 2017

      They are not finished yet, so wont be turning. When they do, the strike price is £155/MWh. Current price to other countries is a little over a third of this.

  18. Peter
    September 24, 2017

    Mrs. May needs to be removed from leadership.

    Then a genuine timely Brexit can be pursued in a timely manner – probably on WTO terms.

    As for water management, this should never have been privatised. It now comes under the ownership of foreign companies who make vast profits while the infrastructure goes from bad to worse.

  19. Duncan
    September 24, 2017

    We all appreciate that water is an essential but in political terms it’s an irrelevance. Let’s focus on more important matters.

    Corbyn’s pro-EU stance is a god-given electoral opportunity for the Tories in the north amongst Labour’s core vote. I know because I am one of them

    The EU issue that now divides both main parties is the Tories Falkland’s moment. White working class people are patriots to the core. They do not take too kindly to UK bashing by the Marxist rabble that has now infected Labour.

    Corbyn’s new found love of the EU and is embracing of further immigration into the UK will not go down too kindly in Labour’s heartlands. The Tories need to grasp this opportunity with both hands

    The WWC in the north resent mass immigration. They understand the need for immigration but they also understand mass immigration is destructive in many ways. They resent the EU and they resent being told that they are wrong to think this way. The Tories must take advantage of this

    We need a PM who understands this. A PM who stops playing Labour’s politics obsession with all things identity based.

    We need a Patriot at the helm

  20. robert lewy
    September 24, 2017

    Living in Wales does not condition one to appreciate the importance of Water Management.

    So, at first glance I considered this post as an euphemistic reference to a potential Liquidity Crisis

  21. Cliff. Wokingham.
    September 24, 2017

    Personally, I am rather cheesed off with water companies at the moment.
    I have just received notice from mine that I am to be forced to have a water meter fitted and that I must give their contractors access to my property if they need it. When I told their “rep” that I did not want one, I got the bland “it is the law” response. I pointed out that I cannot go to an alternative supplier for my water, unlike other utilities where I have a choice of supplier.
    I like the current arrangement because I know what my bill will be, I will not once it goes to a meter.
    I am not happy and “water management” goes on the ever increasing list of things we no longer do well and make hard work of.

    1. alan jutson
      September 24, 2017


      Understand some of your arguments, but if you live in a high cost Council tax house and there are only two living in it, you may save considerable sums over the years.

      Our water bill is now 25% off what it was before we had a meter installed by request.

      Of course the cost per cubic meter of water can rise whenever the company decide to increase it, and the more who go the water meter route the more likely the increase.

    2. Chris
      September 24, 2017

      You do not have to have metered water even though you are forced to have a meter installed. You have a choice, still, to opt to have the water metered. At the moment they cannot force you. (We have had one fitted (forced to) but water is not metered. However, when the house is sold the new owners will have to have metered water).

      1. Cliff. Wokingham.
        September 25, 2017

        Thanks Chris,

        1. Cliff. Wokingham.
          September 25, 2017

          Hi Chris,
          Further to your comment, I spoke with Wokingham’s water supplier and they informed me that because the Wokingham area is classed as an area of water stress, they have the legal right to charge for water on a volume basis. They stated that The Department of The Environment gave them this power.
          It seems odd that, given we live in an area of “Water Stress” they are still building thousands of new homes.

  22. Denis Cooper
    September 24, 2017

    Oh my goodness, the cabinet is split wide open again:


    “No new EU rules after 2019, says Boris Johnson as Cabinet split on transition plan reopens”

    I know that journalists need to get readers etc etc but do we have to put up with this kind of childishness from the media? These are mere details which will need to be settled, and provided that the transition period is only two years it will make little difference one way or the other whether changes to the EU rules apply to the UK.

    By far the more important issue is how it can be legally guaranteed that the transition period can and will last no more than two years after we have left the EU.

    1. Chris
      September 24, 2017

      I believe that this is serious. See also D Express reports about Macron and Merkel’s grand plans, and then couple that with Hammond, Rudd and others.

      The Remainers will not give up, and the Leavers have got to “up their game” and very quickly. A two year transition is too long simply because it enables the Remainers to create yet more havoc and throw the government into chaos. Make no mistake, they are determined to win, and I believe will use fair means or foul to achieve that end.

      1. Denis Cooper
        September 25, 2017

        Two years may well be longer than necessary for some things, as Theresa May hinted in her speech:

        “How long the period is should be determined simply by how long it will take to prepare and implement the new processes and new systems that will underpin that future partnership.

        For example, it will take time to put in place the new immigration system required to re-take control of the UK’s borders … ”

        “… As of today, these considerations point to an implementation period of around two years.

        But because I don’t believe that either the EU or the British people will want the UK to stay longer in the existing structures than is necessary, we could also agree to bring forward aspects of that future framework … more quickly if this can be done smoothly … “

  23. behindthefrogs
    September 24, 2017

    We need to ensure that water management includes its use for power generation. It is a disgrace that of the 28 weirs on the river Thames that could be used to economically generate electricity only four have or have planned implementations. One only has to look at any of the weirs downstream of Oxford even on a summers day to realize how much power is being wasted. All of these weirs were after all originally constructed to support water mills.

  24. McBryde
    September 24, 2017

    The diverting new topic didn’t work – we’re back on the case!

    Last year I watched an American body language specialist [who learned by experience] studying May’s presentation speech and, later, her reelection speech.

    The conclusion was [even though she didn’t grasp the UK political system, or know the players] that the UK will never leave the EU.

    Looking at the clues, May’s personal affiliations were still discernible through the staged performance for which she was clearly trained for maximum effect (i.e. deception).
    What emerged was an identification with the EU, Labour, Libdem and SNP, and an aversion to the Brexit contingency.

    May even made the slip that her government was for the interests of the EU ” … er… I mean the UK!”.

    I think Rees Mogg is one of the rare politicians who have principles which take precedence over personal ambition. When he talks we listen, as our innate subconscious instinct knows he is telling it straight. I generally have put JR in that same category in general. But something seems to be a bit cloudy here.

    Still, to generate maximum power for good it is sometimes necessary to keep one’s hand close to one’s chest.

    This is an important stage of history: when it is demonstrated to the world that democracy is being forcefully and stealthily replaced by fascism, where all the established parties are under the same wide umbrella, which is to force globalism on the masses who don’t know what’s good for them. It also suits career positions who naturally need to protect their jobs, and make a success of their lives.

    1. Anonymous
      September 24, 2017

      I hear the same thing of Corbyn voters. “They don’t know what they’re voting for.”

      We don’t like it when it’s done to us – we shouldn’t do it to them.

      (Turn the country into a landlording class and young people will vote Labour/confiscator)

  25. Dave K
    September 24, 2017

    There seems to be a two pronged attack.

    1. Use Eco lobbying to persuade the non technical politicians that they will be remembered as “Saving the Planet”.
    2. Get the providers to create artificial shortage to make their product appear rare.

    Then watch your bank account being filled by the “peasants”.


    Cancel reservoir projects and throttle supplies to create “bans” and then fit meters to everywhere to control unit price. For every “scare”, increase unit price. By following EU eco rules you can also cause havoc with flooding which can then be used to justify planet saving point 1.


    Instead of building half a dozen gas fuelled stations like Langage, cover beautiful landscapes with windsticks and pylons and glass sheets. Fit “smart” meters and throttle supplies. For every “scare” (brown outs) increase unit price. Cynically use diesel generators as back up.

    By the way none of the solutions helped to save the planet. If we actually wanted to “reduce emissions” we would have copied the US who nearly halved theirs by fracking and going to gas instead of coal.

    1. Lifelogic
      September 24, 2017

      Exactly. As any sensible energy scientist or engineer knows full well. But not green crap politicians (who are often part time consultants to the green crap industry) or other parasitic rent seekers.

  26. Fed up and Angry
    September 24, 2017

    Building on flood plains will continue whilst Mrs May is Prime Minister since she’ll need somewhere to home the massive wave of immigration. Out means out.

  27. Doug Powell
    September 24, 2017

    JR, did Thames Water ask you if you knew about Surface Water Disposal Charges?


    Since the year 2000 Ofwat has permitted water companies to charge householders for the disposal of surface water through the sewage system. As it happens, the surface water from many premises (rain falling on roofs, patios, gardens etc.) does not drain into the sewage network. Therefore, those householders have been charged for a service they do not receive!

    For example, I recently brought this to the attention of 15 friends – all but one was being charged incorrectly for the disposal of surface water. They have since received a correction and a credit. (In the Thames Water area the charge for the average house seems to be approx £24-26 pa, which means a saving of that amount for each year from now on. Also, we received a credit of about £140 for previous money paid back as far as 01/01/2012.)

    As I have lived in this house since well before 2000, I wrote to TW requesting a full credit back to that year. TW replied that Ofwat had applied a limit of 6 years for backdated payments. Also, I asked that as TW would undoubtedly hold copies of plans of most post war drainage systems, why the rebate was not automatically granted where applicable? TW replied that at the inception of the charges, Ofwat stipulated that the onus was firmly on the customer to claim the rebate!

    NOTE for anyone thinking of making a claim: My friends and I didn’t even have to fill in the application form. We simply applied by phone. The company said they would be in touch, and in each case we were granted the rebate within the week.

    I must say that TW dealt with this very well. However, I am unable to have a good word to say for Ofwat!


  28. Beau Singh
    September 24, 2017

    God charges me more for water every year. That’s what happens with a Triopoly

  29. acorn
    September 24, 2017

    Some of us are finding it difficult to hold our water while reading the comments on this site. Anyway, the remainers are reviewing the EU Brexit defences, looking for the weak spots. This is something you would have thought the Brexiteers would have done by now but, there is little evidence of the people who know the answers, being asked the appropriate questions.

    The UK leaving the EU will have an impact on the EU, primarily on the economies, and the politics of scale, among the the three global trading blocs, which are starting to overwhelm the WTO and its little country members.

    85% of this planets sovereign nations want to be in at least one of those three global trading blocs. The UK has decided it does not want to be. The BoE’s latest Exchange Rate Index shows the US Dollar has by far the largest weight in that index. Outside of the EU, we may end up depending on the Donald.

  30. Christine
    September 24, 2017

    The infrastructure of this country simply cannot cope with the rapidly increasing population. We have two choices 1) Invest huge amounts of money or 2) Stop the population increasing.

  31. Ex-Ukipper
    September 24, 2017

    Nigel Farage will stand behind Alabama Republican primary candidate Judge Roy Moore.He will speak in support of the candidate Monday evening at a rally in Fairhope, Alabama.
    Hard to know what Farage is up to. He retires from British politics and lands up across the Atlantic. Can’t blame him though for getting out of UKIP. They are losers with eleven losers standing for the leader of losers…Whichever wins he’ll be backstabbed putting Gove down as an amateur pocket penknife sharpener. UKIPpers can back stab! All fifty of them and a dog.

  32. ChrisS
    September 24, 2017

    According to exit polls, Merkel has been re-elected albeit with a substantially reduced vote, down over 10% on 2013.

    I recall that she was very desparaging about Mrs May losing her majority back in June and many in Brussels and the capitals around Europe mocked Mrs May’s performance, commenting that she no longer had a mandate for Brexit, despite both main parties having run on a Brexit ticket.

    I hope European politicians are laughing again tonight seeing that Merkel achieved only 32.5% of the popular vote, and that was only with the support of Bavaria’s CSU, who were very reluctant to support her after the migrant debacle.

    Mrs May and the Conservative party won the support of 42% !

    It is likely to take Merkel weeks to assemble an unholy coalition with the free market FDP and the Greens who really have it in for the German car industry.

    If this result happened in Britain it would be described in the media as a disaster for the party leader but Merkel seems to be teflon coated.

    1. Anonymous
      September 24, 2017

      And yet another EU nation with a substantial ultra right wing representation in Parliament.

      Something the British have never done.

  33. Caterpillar
    September 24, 2017

    When ‘we’ were discussing productivity, it was noted that net capital formation was only slightly ahead of population growth. I suspect much (not all) of our lack of recovery since 2007/8 (and performance before) is due to a combination of population growth, ZIRP, and infrastructural spend.

    BTW are the reports that military are selling off useful kit (rather than mothballing) true? Presumably capital accumulation is important for military productivity, as capital is for the rest of the economy.

  34. No words!
    September 24, 2017

    So the Labour Party are not going to discuss Brexit.!! How funny! Miliband forgot to mention the Economy when he was standing as PM. Members were told not discuss immigration on the doorstep campaigns. Just leaves them with the hot topic of “Claims for Expenses in Attending Conference ” 🙂

  35. Prigger
    September 24, 2017

    Our media missed something out. The BBC and Sky News showed people in Germany protesting the democratic election of AfD. They were chanting in English. They were not English. Our media did not explain. The fact is, the protesters against democracy do not understand German.

  36. Prigger
    September 24, 2017

    Why are all intelligent people now dubbed “Far Right”? Why can’t the Labour/LibDems/Greens/SNP simply pull their tongues out at us like they did at school, wipe their noses on their sleeves and shout “Swot!” “Snobby” “Prof!” ?

Comments are closed.