please refer posters to this thread should they start waffling political nonsense
would Ash & Jantra Like to kick off ?

I like this, thumbs up. Paul we need a karma system.

Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz2jbCJXkpA

Ok Dave sorry Ash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_vSSKfs-Bs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

self praise is no praise at all

@Ash

I heard about this on R4's today this am. On the face of it it does seem a good idea. I also noted Robert Peston (an impartial journalist i respect immensely) had something to say:-

those that the banks want to lend to don't really need the credit
those that need the credit the banks don't want to lend to

What RP was trying to say is that banks need to relax their lending criteria for this scheme to work, but at the same time the banking commission (and others) are placing significant pressure on banks to shore up their balance sheets and ring fence retail ops from investment ops. So it is a tough call. it is good to see the government supporting the BoE to do this, although given the state of the economy, how many are actually going to take up the offer of credit anyway?

One thing that struck me is that this very much is Keynsian pump priming via the back door. The government is injecting money into the economy albeit not by the public sector. I actually think this is a better model. I'm not a fan of the public sector's inability to deliver VFM although i'm also wary of the emphasis given to wider need of society by the private sector as opposed to short termism and profit motive. So I think this is a good mix where the government ensures the funds provided have to be used to provide funding to the consumer and businesses rather than trading accounts of investors.

it is quite an innovative approach although I think it may prove difficult as people/businesses are paying down debt not necessarily taken it on. It all depends on how relaxed the banks become to credit risk - and we all know that relaxing credit risk too much can have disastrous consequences.

I's not really associated with Jantra's post but it probably comes under the umbrella of economic drivel. Anyway I read in the Guardian that Welsh Water are investing 1bn into upgrading their current facilities and renewable energy projects. They hope to create 1,500 jobs in construction the majority of which will be in Wales. At the same time increases in water rates are lower than anywhere else and below the level of inflation, leakages are at an all time low and satisfaction rates are at an all time high.

As we know Welsh Water is owned by Glas Cymru and is a not for profit company (even though it appears to have made a 7m profit this year according to the WM). Part of the reason why they appear to be achieving such impressive results is that there is not the short term profit imperative of private sector companies, they have no shareholders to please, they can take a long term view and plan for future contingencies.

Surely this should be the model for all essential utilities - water, gas, electricity etc? Maybe even public transport? The results speak for themselves don't they? Whilst private water co's in England impose hose pipe bans, face a huge backlog of repairs, have not invested in the infrastructure to cope with drier conditions yet still charge their customers more in Wales it seems that the most precious resource of all is being protected by judicious stewardship which if the chief exec is correct is in large part down to adopting a model which in practice walks the line between public and private sector.

This post is related to Jantra (and Ash's) post and once again is economic drivel.

It's not a critique of the announcement made today rather anecdotal evidence of why I think its much needed and probably overdue. I''ve spoken to two different people this week whose companies have crashed and burned because the banks have reviewed their risk profile and have withdrawn funding. Both companies were long established (20 plus years), both employed a significant number of people and both had a fairly healthy order book. Neither of them had abused previous funding arrangements or breached terms (or at least thats what they have told me). One of the banks withdrawing funding is the one that was bailed out by you and I to the tune of many billions.

It's actually disgraceful whats happened and even more so that one of the banks owned by the taxpayer is indulging in this type of behaviour.

food for thought Karl and my initial reaction is of course it makes sense. However, just a little bit more thought may put a slightly differently angle on it, although I appreciate this simplification may be doing the Glas Cymru model a disservice.

Wales has an abundance of water, so much so we have enough for our own population and ship lots of it to Western England. This means that the infrastructure in Wales geopgraphic region is supported by sales outside of that region. The converse is true for English regions have infrastructure requirements not being supported by sales hence why we may be seeing less infrastructure development in England than Wales.

In a way it mirrors Germany and its exports providing a higher standard of living by producing more than they need and selling the rest.

What this means is that Wales may have an infrastructure for 3m people, but will probably sell its reserves to say 6-8m people if you include what is distributed to the northwest and midlands. I doubt very much that what Welsh Water ship to England is at cost and an element of what is charged includes infrastructure charges which benefits us here in Wales.

NB the numbers I have quoted are not the exact numbers by any stretch, I have done no research and are only used for indicative purposes. If the pedants (you know who you are) need to get bogged down in the exact number of people Welsh Water serve then go ahead. However, the intelligent posters will realise that is not the point being raised, the point being raised is that Wales infrastructure is supported by selling its reserves to England.

I may be wrong but I diodn't think any water was sold to England? Isn't Severn Trent in charge of the water that is pumped from reservoirs in Wales to places in England?

Happy to be corrected but I'm not sure there is any transfer of cash from England to Wales in respect of water.

At present the water in Wales is taken from Wales by the companies in England for free and they sell it on to their customers. Wales, by law, isn't allowed to charge for her water. I believe Hain had something to do with that in the Government of Wales act 2006

off topic just briefly to compliment sheepshagger on this thread - happy days!!

who pays for the infrastructure? I'm pretty sure there is a charge paid by The English utilities to the Welsh Water / Dwr Cymru for the cost of providing the water. Surely the onus is not on WW/DC to maintain the distribution from Wales to England without recompense?

I couldn't find any reference to utilities in the GoWA2006 but has been pointed out elsewhere I'm not very good at reading the orders and amendments at the foot of the legislation.

I'm not sure if there is a charge but I'd imagine that the reservoirs are actually not owned by Dwr Cymru themselves but the other water companies.

I'm not 100% sure that it is in the Government of Wales act 2006 but I cannot for the devil of me remember where I read an article about it. But I am positive that Wales sees no benefits from the water that goes over the boarder. Even read estimates that the water, at the rate it is being sold in England, is worth around £2 billion

My understanding was that the water that went over the border was supplied by Severn Trent, who presumably will also be responsible for the reservoirs, infrastructure etc. (Didn't Severn Trent recently try and sell off Lake Vyrynwy or at least the land surrounding it)?

I'm not sure that Welsh Water has anything to do with water supply to England other than parts of Herefordshire or that it makes any money from selling water and/or providing services relating to water supplies to England.

Going back to my original point it seems to me that the model adopted by Welsh Water is one that actually benefits the consumer as well as allowing for long term planning. Leaving aside legal issues it seems eminently sensible to me that the model should at least be considered for other water authorities and in connection to the supply of essential utilities.

On first blush it appears to have the benefits of avoiding short term profit chasing to please shareholders whilst at the same time not being a burden on the taxpayer by being part of the public sector.

Why not just take all the Water Companies back into public ownership?

because the public sector aren't focussed on value for money, whereas the private sector is. This model has best of both worlds, social considerations found in the public sector and VFM found in the private sector.

one reason for not nationalising the industry again, I remember the days pre privatisation and seeing water all over the roads on a regular basis due to lack of maintenance and proper infrastructure. Costs were lower due to tax subsidy but service was also lower as well.

Ah, the first article of the One True Economic Faith, how touching.

Tell me Jantra, have you ever sat through even five minutes of economics education?

And while we're on the subject of your deficiencies I just thought I'd drag this over from the ST Davids thread:

I think you'll find the IMF disagree with you:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/gfs/yearbook/2008/gfsy08.pdf

Spain ran a substantial government surplus between 2004 and 2008, as did Ireland.

Like I said, innit.

what has that got to do with anything? i made a comment regarding the ability of the UK public sector to deliver VFM services, in my opinion they cannot.

that is not what you claimed is it? let us remind ourself what you actually claimed



first of all you made a quite unbelievable claim that neither the Spanish or Irish governments borrowed. This is of course utter codswallop. Your beloved IMF comic (page 228 Ireland as an example) shows significant government liabilities. Perhaps in Lyndonworld these liabilities are in fact assets - who knows or dares to dream.

The you made another extraordinary claim that they were both running substantial government surpluses right up to the crash. The IMF document is for 2005-2007. Now in my view a three year period is no way indicative of an economic cycle - perhaps you skipped that particular lesson in these classes you have previously referenced. Or perhaps in Lyndonworld economic cycles are fixed for 3 years or less. who knows? I obviously don't. now to give your claim any sort of credence, all you need to do is to show that since the last recession in 1992 - that is, right across the economic cycle - both Ireland and Spain have run significant government surpluses each and every year. Far be it from me to suggest you have cherry picked your years to try and prove a n argument

then you attempt to pass up the concept of personal responsibility - as if the lender is evil and the borrower had no option to take out the loans/borrowings being offered. Again, on the planet with just one sun this is not the case, certainly not in Spain, Ireland, UK or even Germany which unless I am mistaken, are part of what is known as the free world.

So there you have it, you have cherry picked 3 years showing slight (not significant) surpluses, but have omitted the entire economic cycle. You have also stated that individuals have no moral and financial responsibility for their own actions.

I'm sorry Jantra, what I actually meant was that in the years immediately preceeding the crash of 2008, which you attributed to excess government borrowing in Spain and Ireland, both governments were running budget surpluses. In other words, spelling it out really simply for you as you don't appear to understand what this means, their annual taxation revenue exceeded their annual expenditure.

When I said that the Spanish government "did not borrow anything", I did not mean to imply over the entire period of the existence of the Spanish State, from the accession of Ferdinand and Isabella in 1469, right up to the present.

I'm sorry if I did not make that crystal clear, but I was assuming that I was addressing a grownup. My mistake.

Wow! ... I'm actually quite astounded that this thread has 'evolved' into political drivel ...

I'd presumed that the original poster was being quite oafish - but I do see their point

apology accepted


well you certainly didn't articulate that. I wouldn't even say it was thinly veiled but more like veiled in stealth. Even if you did say it somewhere in what you had written, its not really painting the whole picture is it.

You have cherry picked your years - I'd hazard a guess that most governments (other than the UK) ran a surplus during the feast years of 2003-2008. Classical Keynesian economics is to pay back during the feast years. unfortunately for the UK, during the feast years, we have a chancellor and prime minister who were financially incontinent.

Following on from your supporting of governments paying back borrowings during feast years, I'm sure you will agree that voting Labour back into power would be disastrous for the UK considering their lack of financial prudence and failure to adhere to basic economic principles.


Both the Irish and Spanish governments were in receipt of significant EU funding and to suggest the Spanish government did not borrow is just ludicrous. What exactly are the government liabilities if they are not borrowings? What exactly are Spanish bond rates (that are currently at or around 7%) if they are not rates at which the Spanish government borrows. I've seen some shit written on here at times, but saying that governments do not borrow sees you galloping up diarrhea drive without a saddle.



just so I understand, you write total bollocks, making spurious claims about governments not borrowing, cherry picking a small part of the economic cycle to make a claim of financial prudence, then you have the temerity to question whether I can interpret your 'analysis'. You really couldn't make this nonsense up.

All you need to consider is whether Spain and Ireland are now in receipt of EU bailout money and why they need that money? It is because of a sovereign debt crisis in both states, no other reason. such a crisis is where a government cannot borrow money to repay its revolving credit. A 10 year bond taken out by Ireland in 2002 in redeemable in 2012. Most governments simply issue new bonds to cover the repayment. Ireland and Spain's rates have risen dramatically since 2002, meaning less internal revenue for services as more will be spent on interest - if they can get the loans they need. simplistic - yes, but more than suitable for a Cardiff based development forum

eh less off the oaf
I did honestly think this thread would have been deleted on creation but im glad that it seems to have evolved into a home for political /economic bollox .. to be homest a lot of it goes over my head but i do read it and i am interested to an extent
right im off to fix the civil war braking out on CCMB .. I wish
au revoir

I've only just caught up with this conversation since I object to discussions of politics being consigned to a thread marked 'drivel'. Apparently the success or otherwise of Cardiff's economy is about which shoe retailer rents which unit - rather than 'drivel' about the management of the UK economy!

Anyway, there's a basic misunderstanding in most discussions about the water industry. It's assumed that ownership of infrastucture implies ownership of water. It doesn't. Water is the property of the Crown and water companies operate by a system of extraction licenses issued by the Enviroment Agency.

It is possible to charge for "water exports" from Wales to England - regardless of who owns the infrastructure.

Whether it's a good idea or not is another matter.

@ash

First paragraph, totally agree. Cardiffs development is very much centred on its economic performance.