Rally Round the Flag and Defend BP?!

Regular readers will know that we Stroppybloggers are no great fans of the Daily Mail. And today, the right-wing rag has wound me up again.

The Mail's front page today urges David Cameron to 'stand up for your country' by defending BP against Barack Obama's criticism. In case they hadn't noticed, BP ceased to be owned by 'the country' when Cameron's predecessor, Thatcher, flogged it off.

The explosion at BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig killed eleven workers and has caused untold environmental and ecological damage, including the possible extinction of species.

BP was happy to pull in the profits and not share them with the rest of us when things were going well, but now we're supposed to take collective responsibility for defending it from thoroughly-deserved criticism when it cocks up on a massive scale?

No thanks. There is no 'national interest' in defending a private multinational corporation that puts profits before workers' safety and the environmental. Not even if the 'B' used to stand for 'British'.

[PS. Good article here.]

Demonstrations and Meetings in Support of Vestas Workers

Wed 5 August
BRIGHTON The Cowley Club, London Road, Brighton Support for Vestas Workers meeting, 7pm, tel: John 07845 183407

Thurs 6 August
LONDON DECC, 3 Whitehall Place, rally, 6.30pm, organised by CACC

Fri 7 August
SOUTH LONDON Sayes Court Club House, 341 Evelyn Street, Deptford SE8 5QT, 3pm, picket Joan Ruddock, climate change minister, tel: 07951 450370

Sat 8 August
MANCHESTER 1pm, Market Street, street stall; 3pm, march from Market Street to Piccadilly Gardens for a rally, tel: Hugh 07769 611320

Wed 12 August
LIVERPOOL Casa (the dockers' pub), 29 Hope St, 7pm, RMT, dockers and Merseyside TUC meeting to set up solidarity campaign, tel: 0151 709 1786/07940 244718/07930 870934, email: j.tilley@rmt.org.uk

In the event of eviction:
Bristol: demonstrate 5.30pm same day at Bristol fountain
Manchester: 5pm same day in Piccadilly Gardens and organise a protest at 8am the following day at Vestas HQ in Warrington

Sat 19 September
LOCATION TBC 12-6pm, Workers' Climate Action conference

Dear Ed, about Vestas, ... erm ...

So, you are the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, which makes you a (even the) leading spokesperson for workers in Britain. In the midst of a recession, hundreds of jobs are to be lost as a factory closes on the Isle of Wight. Moreover, this is a wind turbine factory, and so plays an important role in the transition to environmentally-friendly energy production that is so desperately needed. The workers get organised, occupy the factory, attract loads of support from across the union movement, and what do you do ...?

Well, the one good thing that can be said for Brendan Barber is that he has written to Ed Miliband saying that he thinks that efforts should be made to keep Vestas open. Bravo. Better than not writing a letter, I'm sure.

But the letter - copied below - is at pains to praise the government's efforts so far (what efforts?!) and conspicuously avoids either mentioning the workers' occupation of the factory or suggesting even tentatively that the government might possibly consider bring the factory into public ownership.

With union leaders like this, the bosses must be quaking in their boots (not).

Dear Ed

Vestas Wind Systems

As you are aware, the TUC shares your absolute commitment to tackle climate change, including through the development of a low carbon industrial strategy with quality green jobs and skills at its heart.

I am sure that you also share our frustration and dismay about the planned end to production at the Vestas wind turbine facility on the Isle of Wight – the only one of its size in Britain – which would result in the loss of over 600 jobs directly, and many more through the supply chain. In the context of a growing global urgency to cut carbon emissions, it would be difficult to find a more damning example of market failure, or of corporate inflexibility, than one such as this which threatens the viability of existing UK based green energy manufacturing, and the livelihoods of a skilled and dedicated workforce.

I want to acknowledge the considerable efforts you have already made to intervene in respect of the planned closure of the Vestas plant, to secure investment and to tackle the barriers to renewable energy market growth. However, I am sure you understand that unions, and the members they represent in the Vestas workforce, will want to feel sure that no stone has been left unturned in our bid to find an alternative that would protect green manufacturing skills and jobs on the island and elsewhere.

Even at this late stage we believe that Vestas should be pressed to halt its closure plan to give time for proper dialogue and for every possible alternative to be fully explored. I would also ask Government to urgently bring together business, unions and industry experts with a view to securing a future for wind turbine production in the UK, and so that the lessons of Vestas can be learned and never allowed to happen again.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours Sincerely

Brendan Barber
General Secretary

Workers' Climate Action - Volunteer for Vestas

An appeal from Workers' Climate Action to support the fight to keep the Vestas wind turbine factory open ...

On Tuesday 4th August the injunction brought by Vestas plc to evict the workers from their wind turbine factory, currently under occupation in the Isle of Wight, will be in court.

This is the second time the injunction has come to court, and if Vestas plc win then the forcible eviction of the workers will be imenent (likely to be within the next 1-2 weeks).

The workers urgently need more support from all areas of the movement - environmental, socialist, anarchist, any combination of the above! We are organising a mini bus to head to Vestas in time for the injunction hearing. It will leave on Monday evening about 6pm and return on Wednesday morning. Take a day off work, pull a sickie, change your plans - this factory needs to be saved for the workers, and for the planet.

All help is appreciated, but if you can offer any of the following things then please especially think about getting down there and let us know what skills or resources you're taking with you:

*Can you help organise a direct action skills-up?
*Would you like to help organise and provide some childcare?
*Are you good at media work including media contacts?
*Experience in legal observing?
*Do you have infrastructure which can be used at the camp including tents/small marquees/cooking facilities/kids stuff/anything to make it livable
*And most importantly are you a willing pair of hands (all support is very useful)?

The minibus will cost around £30 (return) and will hopefully be subsidised. This needs to be organised asap so if you can help and want to get on the minibus call Maddy on 07954251724 or Bex on 07971719797. Any questions call or e-mail vestasvolunteers@riseup.net

If you can't make it down on Monday then please think about taking the time to go down in the period in between the injunction hearing and the eviction which may result from it if the hearing goes in favour of Vestas plc. We will send around another update later in the week with more information about plans for the post-injunction resistance. However, getting skills and infrastructure down there is important *now*.

Having both been down there we can assure you that it is a really friendly open environment, everyone is welcome, and everyone's skills can be put to good use!

Make this the last email you read - and get down to the Isle of Wight!

Solidarity, Maddy and Bex on behalf of Workers' Climate Action

Save Vestas

Just a bit of a round up on this.

First off check out the website and the Facebook group for updates and how to help.

There is a petition, so head over and sign it.

There is a solidarity protest at the Vestas HQ:


Create Green Jobs – Don’t destroy them
Support the Vestas Occupation
Solidarity protest at Vestas UK HQ in Warrington
Saturday 25th July @ 12 noon
Vestas Celtic UK HQ
302 Bridgewater Place
WA3 6XG
Warrington
For Further info: Richard 07760 224 580 – Gtr Manchester Respect

Hat tip Liam.

Liam also has a report from the London demo last Wednesday. Seems Simon Hughes was heckled :

Did you know that Simon Hughes is not a Trotskyist? I can exclusively reveal tonight that the Liberal Democrat MP is not in favour of nationalising stuff under workers’ control and that this is the view of his party.
Who’d have predicted that? Eh?

The cops had decreed that no megaphones were to be used and I can’t claim to have heard too much of what he said but there was something about the importance of skills, something about windpower being a good thing and global warming being a bad thing. Not quite the revolutionary programme but not worth getting your knickers in a twist about. Applaud mildly and see who’s up next is the sensible reaction.
Gosh no!
“It’s a popular front!” “He’s just grandstanding!” “Let’s occupy the ministry!” “Are you in favour of nationalisation???”

Hmm.

Vestas Workers Occupy!

From Martin (Workers' Liberty) on the Isle of Wight ...

Vestas workers have occupied the St Cross factory in Newport. This measure has been taken due to the consistent failure of Vestas Blades and the government to face up to their responsibilities in the necessary challenge of fighting climate change and maintaining jobs.

Due to management attempting to intimidate the workers who have been organising themselves in preparation for a fight, plans to move on the factory were accellerated and a team of workers have taken the plant at 7:45 this evening as a result.

Now more than ever Vestas workers need our support. The island does not have a history of workers taking control - this could be the first of many victories where workers take control of their industries and demand that the bosses put people before profit, the environment before opportunism.

savevestas@googlemail.com
savevestas.wordpress.com

Save Vestas

This is the update circulated on the Workers' Liberty email list.

After the Government's new announcements on renewable energy, the campaign to save the Vestas wind turbine factory on the Isle of Wight looks more winnable than ever.

We need to organise enough pressure - but in the next two weeks! - that the Government cannot get away with talking about vast expansion of renewable energy and simultaneously letting the only wind turbine factory in Britain be shut for lack of an investment in re-fitting which is tiny on the scale of Government finances.

Vestas workers are demanding that the Government take over the factory and reopen it under new management.

On Friday 17 July we demonstrated and leafleted when Prince Charles visited the Isle of Wight.

Workers are meeting to discuss campaign tactics. Moves are afoot to organise a demonstration in Newport IoW, probably around the weekend of 25-26 July, and to launch a "families and community" campaign against the closure.

What you can do:

* Come to the Isle of Wight if you can.
* Organise and send messages of support - from yourself personally, from your union branch or committee, or from other organisations you're involved in. Send to savevestas@gmail.com.
* Spread the word.
* Check out http://savevestas.wordpress.com

God Will Not Interveve, Says Friday Fuckwit

Archbishop Rowan Williams tells us that God will not intervene to save the planet. That's a pretty safe prediction, I'd say, as the Divine One has already omitted to intervene to stop famines, tsunamis, hideous diseases, earthquakes and the suchlike. And how about the Holocaust? Now that would have been as good a time as any for some divine intervention.

So let's get this right ... God creates the world, then sits back while a small proportion of its inhabitants form themselves into a ruling class and destroy his creation. And does nothing. Millions suffer in poverty and agony through no fault of their own, but although he is more than capable of intervening, he chooses not to. And we are supposed to worship this geezer?!

In the Gospel of St Luke, the parable of the Good Samaritan denounces those who would pass on the other side and not intervene to help a man lying beaten at the roadside. But it's OK for God to pass on the other side, yes?

Further, despite the fact that God has no intention of intervening to save the planet, the Archbishop would still have us all say our prayers each day. And praying, if I remember rightly, consists primarily of asking God to do stuff ie. to intervene.

So let's follow the Archbishop's (implied) advice. Stop praying and fight capitalism.

In the meantime, what are the chances of our FF realising the real reason why God won't intervene: because he doesn't exist. Pretty slim, I'd say, but the real fuckwittery in Williams' comment is that even if God does exist, he's not much use, is he?

Labour and Climate Change

This is a particularly interesting article from a Norwegian trade unionist offering a perspective for trade unionists in the fight against climate change (hat tip: Bruce) ...

Could the trade union movement benefit from measures to tackle climate change?

By Asbjørn Wahl, Norwegian Union of Municipal and General Employees

Most problems in society are mainly social and political, even if at first glance they seem purely technical or scientific. This is a hard-earned lesson for the labour and trade union movement. For example, workplace technology can be developed to serve different interests: the shareholders, the customers, the workers… In the end it is the actual balance of power which decides the solution and who it will benefit.

The threat of climate change is no exception. The solution of this problem requires, among other things, a huge amount of new technology. But the problem isn’t just about technology, it is a genuinely social and political issue. It is decisive, therefore, that the trade union movement develops its own climate change policies. We have to move from a reactive to a proactive position. In the end, it is a question of what kind of society we want to develop.

Facing up to the issues

So far, much of the trade union movement has hesitated when confronted with the problem of climate change, even though this situation has moved on significantly in recent years. There has been a tendency to deny the seriousness of the problem, and there has been some opposition against taking action as a result of a (fully understandable) fear of job losses.

Our first challenge is therefore to face reality. We have to realise the overwhelming scientific proof that climate change is here, that human activities are crucial factors, and that this can be catastrophic. We must realise that the main reason for the problem is the burning of fossil fuel. This means the success factor of any measure is whether or not it contributes to reducing the burning of fossil fuel. The way we live and work will change radically over the coming years either as a result of action, or of inaction. Not to act, or to delay action, is not an option, but will only make consequences worse.

Failed markets need political control

The Stern Report, which reported to the UK government, concluded that “climate change represents the biggest market failure in history”. The on-going financial crisis represents another huge market failure in history. We cannot rely on those same failed market mechanisms to solve these crises.

Both climate change policies and the financial crisis will need increased democratic control of the economy. That is exactly what we, in the trade union movement, also need for many other reasons. This means that the climate crisis not only represents a threat, but also new possibilities for the trade union movement. The on-going crises, together with neo-liberalism’s current crisis of legitimacy, have actually opened an array of opportunities waiting to be exploited.

Trade unions thus have to prioritise climate change policies, but we have to embed these policies in a broader political context. We therefore also have to overcome the contradictions between specific workers’ immediate, sectoral interests and broader interests of workers as a whole. In other words, we are not only transport workers who face a change in work pattern; we are human beings confronting a potentially catastrophic event.

Redistribution of wealth

One thing is quite clear: there will be far-reaching changes. The question is therefore, how do we meet these challenges? Currently, workers and trade unions are on the defensive. We are under pressure. There is a tendency to individualise responsibility for greenhouse-gas emissions. All of us have to pay for the emissions we cause, it is said, even though those emissions in most cases are effects of the way society is organised and market forces are pushing.

Of course emissions have to be reduced, even radically. This cannot, however, be left to each individual’s responsibility. Neither can it be done by implementing economic restrictions which in practise exempt the rich and wealthy from any change. Why should ordinary people support the necessary climate change policies under such conditions? People will never accept that rich people can continue to pay their way, that corporate interests are protected, while the costs are put on workers, consumers and taxpayers. What is needed, therefore, are collective political solutions in which policies against climate change are combined with a radical social redistribution of wealth. Anything short of that will prevent any solution to the climate crisis.

From defensive to offensive

Environmental organisations tell us we have to make sacrifices to save the climate and our planet. This is both incorrect, and strategically and tactically wrong. Climate change policies are not only a question of sacrifices, but of creating a better society for all. Roger Toussaint, president of Transport Workers’ Union Local 100 in New York, got it right when he, at a climate change conference, stated that: “Going green is not just about job creation, it is about an improved life for working people.”

Serious climate change policies will give us an opportunity for progressive social change. Change will presuppose a more democratically managed economy. it will create millions of green jobs – particularly in public transport and in the production of renewable energy. It will reduce market competition and thereby also reduce pressure at work. It will make it necessary to shorten working hours to reduce the overexploitation of resources and allow a more just distribution of jobs across the globe. It will, if we do our job properly, hopefully reduce consumerism as a way of compensating other unmet needs in our societies, characterised by alienation and powerlessness. In short, social change is a precondition and a solution at the same time to stopping climate change.

Furthermore, reduced greenhouse emissions will also reduce pollution in workplaces and communities. An enormous – and free – transfer of technology to developing countries will be necessary, both to reduce their increase in emissions and to lift two billion people out of poverty. Most importantly, climate change policies will secure the survival of human beings and the planet.

Alliances and social mobilisation

Global summits haven’t achieved social equality, jobs for all, decent working conditions, eradication of poverty, gender equality. It seems unlikely they will solve the problem of climate change either. Instead, we need a social and political mobilisation for alternative solutions built on solidarity, equality and peoples’ needs.

The trade union movement will need to build strategic alliances with the environmental movement, and others. To do that, we have to overcome a couple of important weaknesses. Firstly, we have to ensure the environmental movements understand the role of social power (the class conflict). Secondly, we ourselves need to increase the understanding of environmental problems and the climate crisis in our trade unions. This can only happen if the two movements start to co-operate, exchange views and experiences and develop a friendly and constructive environment for discussion.

An excellent example is the Blue-Green Alliance between the United Steel Workers and the environmental movement Sierra Club in the USA, which “is focused on restoring an additional element to the relationship between public policy and electoral politics … that of movement building … without strong, well-organised social movements mobilising along a society’s basic fault lines, meaningful change is unlikely.”

Our long-term perspective must be to build the social alliances necessary to change society, not the climate. It is ambitious, but necessary and possible – and we will sit in the driver’s seat.


In summary

• Trade unions have to face up to the reality of climate change now
  
• We need to be proactive, not reactive, to deal with the consequences
  
• Climate change is part of a broader political context. We should look at the structure of society to find solutions.
  
• We have to work with others, especially environmental organisations.
  
• Climate change offers many possibilities: new green jobs, a greater role for public transport, less market competition… We must act now to seize these changes and make this a positive step for workers.

friday rant about cyclists

There is an article in the Independent about the different ‘tribes’ of cyclists.

Let’s see...yep they are missing out the ‘tosser’tribe. I know its green and cars are bad blah blah, but some cyclists are tossers.

Of course we want to get people out of their cars and bikes are one solution, along with improved cheap public transport. Given that cars are BAD some people think that because they ride a bike they are GOOD and somehow morally superior, even when cutting up people on pavements. Yep, look at me , I’m green . Yeah a green tosser all too often.

So morally superior do they feel towards car drivers they neglect to reflect on their own arrogant and thoughtless behaviour.

OK examples.
Well for starters cycling on pavements, busy ones. Yeah I know that roads are often not great for them, but pavements are for people. Many times I have had a cyclist hurtling towards me who expects me to move out of their way. I have been sworn at a good few times and of course give as good back.

Pavements are full of all sorts of people who cannot always move out of the way quickly and why should they. This includes the elderly, those with poor mobility or a disability, visual impairments or hard of hearing, those with small children and prams. I heard recently of an elderly woman locally who was badly hurt after a cyclist collided with her on the pavement and its no consolation that cars are more dangerous.

Pedestrians move across pavements and as they are not on a road and are not in a car do not signal, this means bikes can run into them if they cross their path. Again I have been sworn at, but on busy roads walking along a pavement you don’t always hear a bike coming up behind you and as I say it’s a pavement and you’re walking so don’t expect to have to look behind as if driving .

Then there are cyclists who don’t seem to think the highway code applies to them so will go through red lights , even at pedestrian crossings and yes this does endanger people. There is a narrow one way road near me where buses come along and yet cyclists speed down it the wrong way . I have seen cars swerve out of their way yet I'm sure if they were hit they would consider it must be the car driver at fault.

I know this may sound a bit Jeremy Clarkson, but i'm not anti bike, but anti the tosser element. I know there are lots of good cyclists and all that, but there are far too many tossers on bikes . Cyclists should treat pedestrians with the sort of care they want themselves and not excuse it all on cars making their life difficult.

And yeah I am in a ranty Stroppy mood today :-)

Pic Naked Bike Ride in Brighton. Next one tomorrow !

Hackney Council Withdraws Door-To-Door Recycling

It takes a lot to shock me, especially when it comes to Hackney Council, but my gob was well and truly smacked when I got a letter through my door telling me that the Council is stopping door-to-door recycling on my and other estates.

Apparently, we now have to take our recycling to the bank of recycling bins on the other side of the estate. Problems:

1. That's not so easy, for example for those of my neighbours who have mobility problems, or those who can't just 'pop out' with a big bag if they have babies or young children.
   
2. You can only recycle paper, glass and tins at the recycling bank, whereas the door-to-door service additionally collects plastic containers, clothes, shoes, batteries and food waste.

The result will surely be a significant reduction in the amount of waste recycled in Hackney, with all those plastic milk bottles, old clothes etc now going in the bin and onwards to the landfill rather than in the recycling. The loss of food waste recycling is a further blow, as it has a proven effect of reducing rat and other vermin infestation on estates.

The Council's excuse? Two, actually: door-to-door collections were only a trial, and that trial has come to an end; and the boxes might possibly constitute a fire hazard in blocks with a single staircase.

Firstly, the whole point of trials, I should think, is to continue them if they are successful. According to the Hackney Homes website, these trials had a massively positive impact when they started, and there is no reason to believe that this did not carry on.

Secondly, the issue of fire hazard may be valid for some blocks, but it is no excuse for withdrawing door-to-door collections from street-level homes. Neither can I see that it is a reason to withdraw food waste recycling, as it would surprise me if the very small food waste box could realistically be considered an obstruction or a potential source of fire. It seems to be that the concerns expressed by the fire authorities have been taken by Hackney Council and used as a convenient pretext for a much larger withdrawal of recycling services.

I'm sure (not) that it is entirely coincidental that this move falls halfway between elections. Two years ago, Hackney Labour's election material boasted of its commitment to recycling with so much vigour that it seemed that little else mattered. It used recycling as its 'left flank' - so Hackney Council might be allowing estates to crumble, but hey, it was saving the planet with its super-human recycling efforts. With the next election a comfortable two years away, the planet-saving stuff can be allowed to slip. Maybe six months before the next election, they will restore door-to-door recycling and then boast in the election about how much they have increased recycling in the last year!

Two days after receiving the letter, I got my Hackney Homes magazine through the door, the front page of which reminded me to recycle as much as possible. I also remember that in March last year, recycling became compulsory for all street-level homes in Hackney. So Hackney Homes and the Council intend to browbeat us to recycle, but then take away our facility to do so.

What a waste.

A question about recycling.

I'm having a bit of a clear out of papers, documents etc that are cluttering up my flat. Some of have confidential info on it, such as old bank statements, so I'm going to shred them.

So my question, and this may be a dim one, but how do I recycle shredded paper ? Can I put it in the same public paper recycling bins ?

I'm sure one of my greenie readers will know the answer :-)

'Green' sex

Whilst perusing Facebook as a way of avoiding other more pressing tasks, I came across a link to a blog post on 'How to green your sex life .'
(hat tip to Jim Jay who posted it up there) .

Hmmm. I try to be green, albeit in a slightly haphazard fashion.I am though a bit wary about 'green sex'. All sounds a bit dull and worthy, two words that should not be linked to sex in my view. Images of hand knitted sex toys wielded by right on bearded men with pony tails appeared in my head (and I must try to erase them forthwith). I do my best to recycle,worry about my carbon foot print, so can I keep my non PC sex please.

Anyway, take a look and see what you think. It includes sex toys, underwear , finding a 'tree hugger' partner (her words, not my sarcasm!)and the benefits of vegetarianism for oral sex. Oh and something about 'suspicious' dildos !

pic is of some 'green' knickers.

Greenwash

Big business hit the headlines last week with a CBI report on the threat of climate change. Another example of 'Greenwash'? An attempt by big business to appear concerned about the environment whilst simultaneously damaging it with their profit-driven activities? Certainly.

There's another agenda too. The CBI claims that "New taxes and regulations are needed to reward climate-friendly firms". In other words, they want us to pay them to slow down their killing of our planet. The bloody cheek of it.

CBI director Richard Lambert said that, "Carbon needs to be part of the DNA for businesses just like health and safety has become over the years." Given the statistics on workplace deaths, and the day-to-day experiences of workers endangered by their bosses, this suggests that the environment should be very very worried.

But it might yet be a useful comparison. If employers want to give environmental protection an equivalent status to health and safety, then they should recognise elected trade union environment reps - in fact, the government should make them do so, and give the reps strong legal rights. And just as workers have the right to refuse to work on the grounds of health and safety concerns, we should have the legal right to refuse to do work that we think is damaging the environment.

Should I Go To The Heathrow Protests?

... Is a hypothetical question, really, cos even if I supported them, there are far more pressing demands on my time during the school summer holidays. But it's a hypothetical worth pondering anyway, and I've pondered to the conclusion that I shouldn't.

I'm not one of the saddos who have been phoning Radio 5 all day denying the existence of climate change, slagging off hippies or not giving a toss about the environment. But I do have a problem with a flat opposition to air travel without differentiation.

I think the fact that many working-class people regularly travel abroad is a Very Good Thing. From my parents' generation where only the rich set foot outside these shores, we have progressed to a society where most people in most developed capitalist countries have seen a bit of the world. That's good for quality of life, for broadening horizons, and - union jack boxer shorts notwithstanding - for integration and internationalism. I have no desire to curtail it by objecting to airports or demanding hikes in taxes on flying.

Sure, air travel is not environmentally friendly. But how about curtailing the bloody thousands of probably-unnecessary business flights by people who could almost certainly do their business on a webchat but see world travel as a perk of the top-flight job? How about changing the ridiculous fact that it is cheaper to fly from London to Glasgow than to take the train? And how about changing that fact not by pricing up air travel but by taking the railways back into public ownership and slashing fares?

Maybe Heathrow shouldn't be expanded, but until the protesters make it clear that their demand is not that everyone should holiday in Clacton not Morocco, then I'll not be joining the camp.

Flooding - Back To The Future?

In the late nineteenth century, there was severe flooding in the east end of London. A poor, working-class, industrial, slum-ridden area, the result was catastrophic. And it was all the more catastrophic because the local private water company proved itself totally inadequate at dealing with the crisis and supplying clean water and sanitation.

The upshot of this was that the Metropolitan Water Board was formed to bring London's water supply into public ownership.

Anyone reckon that we are in a similar situation this summer and perhaps a similar response is required?