The King’s Speech

Anyone spot any stand outs from today’s policy announcements? I have to say I quite like the idea of making water company CEOs personally liable. I bet a good portion of the sewage pollution problem will be miraculously fixed off the back of that one measure.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c250v53jz5dt

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Chris

Anyone spot any stand outs from today’s policy announcements? I have to say I quite like the idea of making water company CEOs personally liable. I bet a good portion of the sewage pollution problem will be miraculously fixed off the back of that one measure.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c250v53jz5dt

Would love it to work, won't hold my breath

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chris

Anyone spot any stand outs from today’s policy announcements? I have to say I quite like the idea of making water company CEOs personally liable. I bet a good portion of the sewage pollution problem will be miraculously fixed off the back of that one measure.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c250v53jz5dt

Was there no problems before 2010? Are there no problems with the river Seine in France or Spanish beaches?
From 2022.

Strictest targets ever for water companies set out by government in new plan to tackle sewage discharges.

So what's happening that is new?

Originally Posted by nomadking

Was there no problems before 2010? Are there no problems with the river Seine in France or Spanish beaches?
From 2022.

So what's happening that is new?

I live for the day you actually voice an opinion on a point that’s been raised, rather than hosing the thread down with non-sequiturs.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

Anyone spot any stand outs from today’s policy announcements? I have to say I quite like the idea of making water company CEOs personally liable. I bet a good portion of the sewage pollution problem will be miraculously fixed off the back of that one measure.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c250v53jz5dt

I don’t think Corporate Responsibility is a new thing, legally.

And any action against a CEO would have to be legal, wouldn’t it?

In which case a burden of proof of would be required.

As always, it’s a great headline but the power already exists.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chris

I live for the day you actually voice an opinion on a point that’s been raised, rather than hosing the thread down with non-sequiturs.

I waiting for the day that somebody talks some sense and stops misleading people. Have I said anything that isn't true?
Not sure how the water companies can be held responsible for increased population and the amount of rain. No magic solution is possible.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don’t think Corporate Responsibility is a new thing, legally.

And any action against a CEO would have to be legal, wouldn’t it?

In which case a burden of proof of would be required.

As always, it’s a great headline but the power already exists.

In practice it is very difficult to hold senior officers of a company personally liable for corporate criminality, even where it is technically possible. As they have announced this as a bill, it seems they intend to modify what power exists or add a new one. The publishing of the bill will reveal what it is they intend to do.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Are there no problems with the river Seine in France or Spanish beaches?

Last I checked, they are not in the UK.

---------- Post added at 21:02 ---------- Previous post was at 20:54 ----------

Building more homes - not really that useful if no one can afford to buy them.
How about making renting cheaper and easier.

Creating a new energy firm - not actually going to sell electricity (or gas) to us, so not as useful as some had hoped.

Restricting junk food adverts - pointless waste of time. Trying to control what we eat again, good old nanny state.

There was something about [Digital] ID cards, despite they fact they clearly said previously it wasnt on the cards.

Oh, and apparently the same [daft] anti-smoking law the last lot dreamed up.

[Mr K]

It was all in the manifesto, and they are the elected Govt. Not many surprises.

Tory landlords are winging about no fault evictions being banned. They'll now have to go out to work to earn a living, instead of just letting the money roll in....

Um, how do evictions let "the money roll in" ?

[jfman]

Because they kick out a tenant under an no fault eviction and get a new one in paying a higher rent?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by jfman

Because they kick out a tenant under an no fault eviction and get a new one in paying a higher rent?

When l went into rented accommodation for the first time in the early 80s landlords had to have a very good reason to evict a tenant, let alone charge a new tenant a higher rent.

When my sister lived in London her rent was £600 a month, now its over £2000 a month.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Paul

Last I checked, they are not in the UK.

---------- Post added at 21:02 ---------- Previous post was at 20:54 ----------

Building more homes - not really that useful if no one can afford to buy them.
How about making renting cheaper and easier.

Creating a new energy firm - not actually going to sell electricity (or gas) to us, so not as useful as some had hoped.

Restricting junk food adverts - pointless waste of time. Trying to control what we eat again, good old nanny state.

There was something about [Digital] ID cards, despite they fact they clearly said previously it wasnt on the cards.

Oh, and apparently the same [daft] anti-smoking law the last lot dreamed up.

Some sanity here. The rental sector has exploited the consumer for years. We need a form of rent control to curb the excess of the market.

You complain about the nanny state but if you leave the market to dictate our food policy, you end up with excess obesity and its severe impact on the health & care system.

Rent control has nothing to do with a nanny state trying to tell us what we can/cant eat.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Paul

Rent control has nothing to do with a nanny state trying to tell us what we can/cant eat.

Never said it was. I was commenting on your two separate points