Westminster use the UK Reserve Fund to pay for £4.1bn cost of upgrading London sewers

[Deleted]

Do you have a source for this? I'm not aware of such a fund, and google just gives me this thread.

It's not the sort of thing you can pull an internet source up on. You'd literally have to pass a Freedom of Information request to the UK government to get access to information on it. A lot of it is pure governmental documentation, and the Reserve Fund is under control of the Treasury; they grant access to it on a case-by-case basis.

[semaphore]

It's not the sort of thing you can pull an internet source up on. You'd literally have to pass a Freedom of Information request to the UK government to get access to information on it. A lot of it is pure governmental documentation, and the Reserve Fund is under control of the Treasury; they grant access to it on a case-by-case basis.

Not to say that I don't take your word at face value, but if something exists, I should be able to find references to it through google. More references than your posts in this thread, I mean. I don't need a complete explaination of it or anything, it's just that I just couldn't find it at all.

Unless of course that's not actually the name of the fund.

[Noomz]

That's perhaps arguable for the sewers upgrade; but you'd be hard put to argue that reducing the South-East of England's water bills by £50 each benefits the UK.

As fishy as this has been done, I'm sure that London will appriciate functioning sewers for the Olympics.

[Deleted]

Not to say that I don't take your word at face value, but if something exists, I should be able to find references to it through google. More references than your posts in this thread, I mean. I don't need a complete explaination of it or anything, it's just that I just couldn't find it at all.

Unless of course that's not actually the name of the fund.

That's because it's not an actual official fund per-se. It's more like the Treasury's rainy-day money. If they have a surplus of taxes, part of it goes into the fund to be kept until it's needed; with the Treasury considering each case on a case-by-case basis. It still comes from tax-payer money from around the UK however; and I reckon it's pretty likely they took the Reserve Fund route so they could avoid paying the compensation that would have come from using DEFRA.

[semaphore]

That's because it's not an actual official fund per-se.

Well see you gave the impression that it is an official institution with your capitalisations and explicit references to legal documents with quotations on how it's supposed to be used.

It still comes from tax-payer money from around the UK however; and I reckon it's pretty likely they took the Reserve Fund route so they could avoid paying the compensation that would have come from using DEFRA.

Or because no one in the government had the foresight to plan for these projects, so instead of stretching the existing DEFRA budget they dipped into the reserve instead. The Barnett formula is just a (supposedly temporary) covention with no legal standing, the Treasury could just not release any consequentials to the devolved governments if they wanted.

[BLCalliente]

The title of this thread should be:

"England uses part of budget surplus on infrastructure"

That should be the only post in the thread.

[Deleted]

The title of this thread should be:

"England uses part of budget surplus on infrastructure"

That should be the only post in the thread.

Not really; considering the fact that matters such as these are supposed to be funded by DEFRA for a reason. The Reserve Fund is only used for matters that benefit as the UK as a whole as stated.

[Dhrizzle]

That's because it's not an actual official fund per-se. It's more like the Treasury's rainy-day money. If they have a surplus of taxes, part of it goes into the fund to be kept until it's needed; with the Treasury considering each case on a case-by-case basis. It still comes from tax-payer money from around the UK however; and I reckon it's pretty likely they took the Reserve Fund route so they could avoid paying the compensation that would have come from using DEFRA.

Offsetting an unfairly large bill and fixing-up an expensive bit of plumbing sound like exactly the sorts of things you'd spend a rainy-day fund on.

[Deleted]

Such terms are open to the wildest interpretations and therefor used so often in politics.

For instance you could argue that upgrading London's sewers rises attractiveness of the city and therefore attracts foreign people to move there. Of course it's very far-fetched but I wouldn't be surprised if some politician used it as an excuse.

Considering that the government wants to cap immigration numbers into the country, the first politician to mention that argument would be jumping into a minefield. As you state though, it is a far-fetched idea.

Offsetting an unfairly large bill and fixing-up an expensive bit of plumbing sound like exactly the sorts of things you'd spend a rainy-day fund on.

For the entire UK? Yes indeed. For just London? Eh...if the fund is specifically for the entire UK to be able to make use of, then no.
I suppose the argument here is that the Olympics will benefit the UK as a whole... is the London sewer system really in that much need of repairs?

[semaphore]

Eh...if the fund is specifically for the entire UK to be able to make use of, then no.

Yeah, that part seems extremely extremely extremely suspect. It's probably just a fund for special expenses.

[Shadowmelded]

Tories being Tories as usual. Hope the people who voted for them because they were 'sick of labour' or 'I don't like how Gordon Brown looks' realise they only have themselves to blame.

[Deleted]

Thats the tories for you, they could not even get into power without resorting to shady deals with the Liberal democrats.

[Riff]

My thoughts are it's about time the south got financial handouts, as time and again we see money travelling north and since it would be quite embarassing for London to be "in the shit" when we play host to the Olympics later this year, I'd say it's money well spent and will certainly benefit the rest of the UK.

Those links made interesting reading, specifically the publications they are from - two Scottish and one Welsh. Suprisingly, they had a problem with England getting handouts.

I've yet to see a negative for voting for this current government, so will continue to support them until the next hung parliament.

[Shadowmelded]

My thoughts are it's about time the south got financial handouts, as time and again we see money travelling north and since it would be quite embarassing for London to be "in the shit" when we play host to the Olympics later this year, I'd say it's money well spent and will certainly benefit the rest of the UK.

Those links made interesting reading, specifically the publications they are from - two Scottish and one Welsh. Suprisingly, they had a problem with England getting handouts.

I've yet to see a negative for voting for this current government, so will continue to support them until the next hung parliament.

The incorrect insinuations that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK aside, the south in no way gets neglected.

[Dhrizzle]

For the entire UK? Yes indeed. For just London? Eh...if the fund is specifically for the entire UK to be able to make use of, then no.
I suppose the argument here is that the Olympics will benefit the UK as a whole

The water bill subsidy is for the South West, not London, as they have much larger bills than the rest of the country. I think it's a good use of our "rainy-day" fund to relieve this unfair pressure on some of the UK's worst off people.

... is the London sewer system really in that much need of repairs?

I dread to think about it, London has a larger population than Scotland and that's a lot of crap being dumped.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

is the London sewer system really in that much need of repairs?

A lot of the London sewers were built in the mid to late 19th Century. That puts them between 100 and 150 years old. What do you think happens to brick and mortar when it is exposed to running water and effluent for over a century?

[Deleted]

The water bill subsidy is for the South West, not London, as they have much larger bills than the rest of the country. I think it's a good use of our "rainy-day" fund to relieve this unfair pressure on some of the UK's worst off people.

Apologies I was thinking that included London. That said the unfair pressure would be the fault of the water companies not updating their own infrastructure and squeezing everyone for more cash, correct?
So my assumption is that a few decades of neglect for infratsructure since privitisation has led to a government subsidy (reportedly made by a roundabout means and logic) to make this more "fair" or alleviate soaring water bills. Is this assumption correct?

A lot of the London sewers were built in the mid to late 19th Century. That puts them between 100 and 150 years old. What do you think happens to brick and mortar when it is exposed to running water and effluent for over a century?

Degredation of some sort, but have the sewers never been touched in 150 years? No maintenance of some sort?
I'm not assuming anything I am generally wondering if the repairs are that desparately needed or if this is just an "opportune" time and excuse.

[semaphore]

Apologies I was thinking that included London. That said the unfair pressure would be the fault of the water companies not updating their own infrastructure and squeezing everyone for more cash, correct?

Not an expert myself but Peggleftw gave an explaination on the last page:

its nothing to do with the drought, the south west accounts for about 30% of UKs coast line, and we have under 5% of the population, but our water bills have to pay for the upkeep of the coast line, and because of that we pay on average 25% more for our water than the rest of the UK, the £50 is greatly needed here.

So no, your theory sounds incorrect.

Degredation of some sort, but have the sewers never been touched in 150 years? No maintenance of some sort?

Maintaining something for 150 years doesn't change the fact that it is 150 years old. That's long past due for an overhaul. Also IIRC it's at capacity so yeah.

[Deleted]

Apologies I was thinking that included London. That said the unfair pressure would be the fault of the water companies not updating their own infrastructure and squeezing everyone for more cash, correct?
So my assumption is that a few decades of neglect for infratsructure since privitisation has led to a government subsidy (reportedly made by a roundabout means and logic) to make this more "fair" or alleviate soaring water bills. Is this assumption correct?



Degredation of some sort, but have the sewers never been touched in 150 years? No maintenance of some sort?
I'm not assuming anything I am generally wondering if the repairs are that desparately needed or if this is just an "opportune" time and excuse.

They have been maintained, but eventually you need to replace them.

[Deleted]

They have been maintained, but eventually you need to replace them.

I have no quarrel with the notion that they need to be replaced; I'm irritated however that instead of funding it through the means every other government in the UK would have to use, they fund it through a fund that is only supposed to be used for matters that benefit the entire UK.

The sewers needed upgrading; but they should have been upgraded through funding from DEFRA.