ChatterBank0 min ago
How Many Sewage Works Has U.k. Built In The Last Year?
24 Answers
Yes, this is another thread about immigration.
While we are at it, how many thousands does a small-town sewage works serve?
Do you feel motivated to write to your local councillor, to enquire about this aspect of their housing expansion plans?
300,000 new arrivals, is the figure bandied about on #BBCQT, tonight.
Note: I am not the audience member who asked what was being done about infrastructure and Abbott went off on one about 'burden' because that's what she instinctively thought he meant.
While we are at it, how many thousands does a small-town sewage works serve?
Do you feel motivated to write to your local councillor, to enquire about this aspect of their housing expansion plans?
300,000 new arrivals, is the figure bandied about on #BBCQT, tonight.
Note: I am not the audience member who asked what was being done about infrastructure and Abbott went off on one about 'burden' because that's what she instinctively thought he meant.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hypognosis. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@Islay
//
But your questions asks 'how many sewage works has UK built in the last year' not 'What are your opinions on the number of sewage works built in the last year'.
//
Fair point.
Still, nobody comes to a Q&A website expecting to be told to b*g off and do their own research, do they? (Although I would quite like to see you post an answer like that to one of AOG's questions as the result would be unpredictable).
As for me, I can only suggest that you treat the headline Q as rhetorical and merely intended to stimulate thought and debate. My attention was divided between writing that and listening to Question Time on the telly.
//
But your questions asks 'how many sewage works has UK built in the last year' not 'What are your opinions on the number of sewage works built in the last year'.
//
Fair point.
Still, nobody comes to a Q&A website expecting to be told to b*g off and do their own research, do they? (Although I would quite like to see you post an answer like that to one of AOG's questions as the result would be unpredictable).
As for me, I can only suggest that you treat the headline Q as rhetorical and merely intended to stimulate thought and debate. My attention was divided between writing that and listening to Question Time on the telly.
@sp1814
//Wouldn't council tax and income tax be the source of infrastructure funding?//
Since privatisation, waste water treatment costs can be found itemised in your water bill. Therefore, infrastructure expansion costs should be being passed onto us, as consumers.
Blocked sewers are none of the council's business. *Storm drains* I would expect to be their area because not handling rainwater runoff correctly can lead to damage to road surfaces and verges, which are their remit.
//It would seem unfair to (as you have suggested) bill other countries, whilst at the same time taxing immigrants here. //
Well, part-vacated countries will have under-used works but fixed costs are unavoidable and a shrunken consumer base, there, will find themselves paying more, thanks to their absent compatriots.
Meanwhile, the poop starts to flow immediately they arrive here whilst it may take months to extract enough (via *everyone's* water bill) to start building facilities in response.
//Imagine the uproar if the Spanish government decided to send a bill to the UK to cover infrastructure projects on the Costa Del Sol because of the large number of British ex-pats residing there. //
Yes, that's precisely my point. Ex-pats care only about their bank balance, not the consequences for the rest of us, back home. The effects of mass action (300,000) are almost never considered, as with "nobody will notice my piece of litter".
However, if their water companies are private, not state-owned, then it is none of the EU's business and their can be no mechanism to recoup costs.
TTIP threatens to give corporations the right to sue governments for any legislation changes which damage their profits, so watch this space. (Count EU imposition of refugee quotas as legislation, for example).
Meanwhile, I'm sure our utility companies are thrilled at the arrival of 300,000 new users/customers. Special performance bonuses for top execs, without really having to lift a finger or make any tough decisions.
//Wouldn't council tax and income tax be the source of infrastructure funding?//
Since privatisation, waste water treatment costs can be found itemised in your water bill. Therefore, infrastructure expansion costs should be being passed onto us, as consumers.
Blocked sewers are none of the council's business. *Storm drains* I would expect to be their area because not handling rainwater runoff correctly can lead to damage to road surfaces and verges, which are their remit.
//It would seem unfair to (as you have suggested) bill other countries, whilst at the same time taxing immigrants here. //
Well, part-vacated countries will have under-used works but fixed costs are unavoidable and a shrunken consumer base, there, will find themselves paying more, thanks to their absent compatriots.
Meanwhile, the poop starts to flow immediately they arrive here whilst it may take months to extract enough (via *everyone's* water bill) to start building facilities in response.
//Imagine the uproar if the Spanish government decided to send a bill to the UK to cover infrastructure projects on the Costa Del Sol because of the large number of British ex-pats residing there. //
Yes, that's precisely my point. Ex-pats care only about their bank balance, not the consequences for the rest of us, back home. The effects of mass action (300,000) are almost never considered, as with "nobody will notice my piece of litter".
However, if their water companies are private, not state-owned, then it is none of the EU's business and their can be no mechanism to recoup costs.
TTIP threatens to give corporations the right to sue governments for any legislation changes which damage their profits, so watch this space. (Count EU imposition of refugee quotas as legislation, for example).
Meanwhile, I'm sure our utility companies are thrilled at the arrival of 300,000 new users/customers. Special performance bonuses for top execs, without really having to lift a finger or make any tough decisions.
@Huderon
//Roughly translated that means the notion that immigrants from high birth rate countries will take over by outbreeding the natives is a load of old hooey.//
Yes, I've watched that Hans Rosling lecture where he pointed out that, even in the developing world, farm workers who are up to secondary education level have changed their behaviour, stopping at two kids each because they want to be able to afford college level education for both of them, in hopes of their highet paid work helping to make their retirement comfortable. No more famines in the bad years and their country is climbing out of poverty and advancing in development. Growth attracts foreign investment and things keep getting better.
For Afghans and Syrians, that higher education is, in their eyes, only available by coming to the EU. When the outside world is visible to them via their smartphone, who would want to stick around and live the life of a farmhand?
//Roughly translated that means the notion that immigrants from high birth rate countries will take over by outbreeding the natives is a load of old hooey.//
Yes, I've watched that Hans Rosling lecture where he pointed out that, even in the developing world, farm workers who are up to secondary education level have changed their behaviour, stopping at two kids each because they want to be able to afford college level education for both of them, in hopes of their highet paid work helping to make their retirement comfortable. No more famines in the bad years and their country is climbing out of poverty and advancing in development. Growth attracts foreign investment and things keep getting better.
For Afghans and Syrians, that higher education is, in their eyes, only available by coming to the EU. When the outside world is visible to them via their smartphone, who would want to stick around and live the life of a farmhand?
I've now read parts of mushroom's linked article (it's 32 pages) and the chart on page 6 says one target, in their 2010-2015 5 year plan, was to increase capacity to account for a population increase of 146,000. By 2013:-
"So far we made improvements to our sewage works to enable them to treat sewage from an extra 100,000 people."
I have a horrible feeling that 146,000, over five years is just the forecast of births for the 'n' million population cited on the previous page. I cannot find a single reference to making allowances for mass migration anywhere in the rest of the document.
The Thames Tide Tunnel cannot come soon enough and it is interesting to note that only Thames Water's customer base will share that cost ("£70-80" per year on a bill currently in the £350 range). The same will apply everywhere else in the country, of course, but no other schemes are on that kind of scale.
One glitch is that a multi-occupancy property, whilst being high consumption would only have one water bill, in the landlord's name. Thus they only pay one lot of this £70-80 increase. It cannot be argued that flatsharing migrants massively help foot the infrastructure bill by paying a full share each since, instead, they'd split it between them.
"So far we made improvements to our sewage works to enable them to treat sewage from an extra 100,000 people."
I have a horrible feeling that 146,000, over five years is just the forecast of births for the 'n' million population cited on the previous page. I cannot find a single reference to making allowances for mass migration anywhere in the rest of the document.
The Thames Tide Tunnel cannot come soon enough and it is interesting to note that only Thames Water's customer base will share that cost ("£70-80" per year on a bill currently in the £350 range). The same will apply everywhere else in the country, of course, but no other schemes are on that kind of scale.
One glitch is that a multi-occupancy property, whilst being high consumption would only have one water bill, in the landlord's name. Thus they only pay one lot of this £70-80 increase. It cannot be argued that flatsharing migrants massively help foot the infrastructure bill by paying a full share each since, instead, they'd split it between them.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.