Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

M69 - Desalinization Motion

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
Become part of the Welcome Squad! Apply here! 28-10-2014
    • 37 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    Why was this written as a motion and not a bill?
    Infrastructure spending is in my opinion at the will of the Treasury and hence the government, while bills can be proposed by the opposition on a multitude of things i do not believe that infrastructure spending is an area where i should seek to push something legally binding upon you. As such i have called this motion to your attention (a little more detail than most motions in terms of the figures) and whoever is in government after this goes to vote can put this into a bill.
    • 37 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The 17 month graphic is interesting.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...ht-mapped.html
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Loved my nice long soak in the bath.

    Gotta love life in the north sometimes
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    You know better than the OED? Hah. You're even more infuriating on orthography than you are on Ulster.
    It's not a question as to whether I know better than the Oxford English Dictionary or not, this is more of a matter of opinion, similar to Ulster; so I think it's pointless to try and prove to me that spelling words using "-ize" is right. I don't believe it is and I see it as Americanisation.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    It's not a question as to whether I know better than the Oxford English Dictionary or not, this is more of a matter of opinion, similar to Ulster; so I think it's pointless to try and prove to me that spelling words using "-ize" is right. I don't believe it is and I see it as Americanisation.
    That's not how your previous posts played it, but whatever. I'm sure people here will utilize whatever spellings hold favor with them.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    That's not how your previous posts played it, but whatever. I'm sure people here will utilize whatever spellings hold favor with them.
    Fail troll is fail.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Back to the bill;

    I have to apologise, I'm no expert on the subject, but what's wrong with building newer reservoirs and improving holding systems? It seems the cheaper and more energy efficient alternative.
    • 37 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    Back to the bill;

    I have to apologise, I'm no expert on the subject, but what's wrong with building newer reservoirs and improving holding systems? It seems the cheaper and more energy efficient alternative.
    When you consider that these plants will provide water for as much as 18 million people, the cost of improvements and new water storage measures soon exceeds the cost of these plants, especially if private sector investment can be sought to reduce the cost to the taxpayer.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Do you have any figures for that?
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Surely a better solution would be to simply not have everyone in England crammed into the south east?

    This would affect more than just water levels, too. I was recently down in Surrey and was quite surprised to see so many obviously fairly well off people consigned to living in houses that are smaller than the average garage in my home town.
    • 37 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    Surely a better solution would be to simply not have everyone in England crammed into the south east?

    This would affect more than just water levels, too. I was recently down in Surrey and was quite surprised to see so many obviously fairly well off people consigned to living in houses that are smaller than the average garage in my home town.
    And just how would you prevent these people being crammed into the south east.

    As these people are cramped, this motion proposes a solution.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    And just how would you prevent these people being crammed into the south east.

    As these people are cramped, this motion proposes a solution.
    I don't care enough to suggest a solution, I just don't think that it's a good idea to reward such behaviour with taxpayer spending, especially when pretty much every other part of the country has ample water supplies.

    I mean if I wanted to get more sunlight I'd probably be told to **** off down to Spain or somewhere. I wouldn't expect taxpayer money to give me a solution that still allows me to stay up here.

    So if people in the south east of England are bothered by the lack of water, they should move to somewhere where there is enough water.
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The project could go ahead with less private sector involvement depending on the government of the time however we would seek to get investment from the water companies in return for the operating licenses.

    Three plants at £1.5bn each, 75% private sector involvement in each. Water provided to six million people from each.
    Could all the private companies afford to give that much each?

    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    We're living in Britain today Rakas and that's not how it's spelt in modern British English, but it is how it's spelt in modern "American English". It really is a simple as that, you've got the spelling wrong; if I wasn't against the motion anyway I would join tehFrance in being against it just because of that; Americanisation really gets on my nerves.
    As far as petit reasons go to oppose a bill that has to be near the top of the damn list.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    As far as petit reasons go to oppose a bill that has to be near the top of the damn list.
    As I explained, that's not actually the reason why I'm opposing the motion, however I did say if I wasn't opposing it anyway I would probably join tehFrance in opposing it because of that.
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    As I explained, that's not actually the reason why I'm opposing the motion, however I did say if I wasn't opposing it anyway I would probably join tehFrance in opposing it because of that.
    Yes I know but it's still a silly reason even if it isn't the main one. It's petit and largely irrelevant.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Yes I know but it's still a silly reason even if it isn't the main one. It's petit and largely irrelevant.
    Not in my opinion. I take Americanisation very seriously and if it's creeping into the British legislature then I'd be very worried indeed.
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    Not in my opinion. I take Americanisation very seriously and if it's creeping into the British legislature then I'd be very worried indeed.
    Next thing you know we'll all be spelling words like "harbour" and "labour" without the "u."
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Next thing you know we'll all be spelling words like "harbour" and "labour" without the "u."
    Oh my god... the humanity :eek:
    • 34 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Oh my god... the humanity :eek:
    Won't someone please think of the children!!
    • 37 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Could all the private companies afford to give that much each?



    As far as petit reasons go to oppose a bill that has to be near the top of the damn list.
    Yes, ignoring the fact the fact that there could be multiple investors in the project if it were just one company they would pay a cost of just over £1.1bn, spread over the 25 year lifecycle of the plant this would be £45m a year.

    I believe that it was Thames water last year who reported revenues of £600m and a profit of £200m (will check those figures).
Updated: March 17, 2012
New on TSR

Halloween 2014

Join the TSR Halloween party...if you dare!

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.