Monday 25 July 2022: How I am billed for the water I use

Monday 25 July 2022: How I am billed for the water I use

How would you describe how billing for water currently works and how do you feel about it?

1. The fact that two different water companies are involved, Affinity Water to supply me with fresh water, and Southern Water to process (or not) my waste water, is a situation that I have still not yet got used to. Consequently, I receive two water bills, one from Affinity Water and the other from Southern Water. My water bill from Southern Water is determined by how much fresh water Affinity Water has billed me for. Therefore, the only way I am able to impact on my bill from Southern Water is by changing how much fresh water Affinity Water bills me for. In practice, especially during the months of the growing season, I recycle a lot of water for use in the garden, and, as a consequence, I am paying for a greater volume of waste water processing than I am generating. 

2. Tedious though it may sound, I remain entirely unreconciled to having to buy fresh water from, (and having to pay for my waste water to be processed by) a commercial company. I believe that all public utilities should be in 'public' ownership, and can remember the time when they were. I should very much rather be paying my water bill directly to the local municipality. Moreover, it is not as if, as a result of paying a commercial company, I am able to choose to be supplied with better quality water or  more reliable service (or, in the case of Southern Water, to pay a company that does not pollute the waterways and coastal waters). Notwithstanding the sterling efforts of Affinity Water to "reach out" to its customers, Affinity Water remains primarily accountable to its shareholders.

3. A principal reason for my belief that water should be in public ownership is that the supply of safe, fresh water and the processing of waste water, is a key component for the maintenance of public health. Both historically in Britain, and currently in many parts of the economically-under-developed world, public health is of poor quality because of the absence of safe, fresh water and the processing of waste water. John Snow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Snow). I believe that everyone should have a legal right to sufficient fresh water (and to have their waste water processed) to allow them to remain healthy and to maintain the public health. (Note, there is no reason to extend this legal right to owners of golf courses, or to car valeting services.) As it is, I am charged at a full rate for all the water that I use, regardless of whether it is for reasons of personal/public health or merely for recreation.

4. I consider the fixed charge (20% of my bill: my most recent bill: £14.46 out of £73.57) to be disproportionately high.

Water is currently charged at a flat rate, so the first litre costs as much as the ten thousandth. How do you feel about this flat rate charging?

I have already explained above that basic water use is about personal and public health. To charge customers at the same rate for water used to maintain personal and public health, and water used for recreation is unfair, albeit slightly differently, both on those people who cannot afford more than the bare minimum, and also on those people who choose to be economical in their use of water in order, say, better to protect the environment, and not consume fresh water for recreational purposes (instead, viewing water as a matter of personal and public health).

Imagine you are part of Affinity’s leadership team and have to decide the best way to price water. Please explain how you think people should be charged for the water they use and tell us why.

1. Ensure that every property is metered.

2. Eliminate the fixed charge.

3. Using electoral rolls, establish how many people the water bill covers. Establish whether this number includes any people with additional health needs, such as new-borns, and people who need to bathe/be bathed more frequently.

4. Allocate every person a water allowance, with a higher allowance for people with additional health needs.

5. Deduct water allowances from water usage. Bill accordingly.

In this way, people would be paying for discretionary use of fresh water, not for personal and public health use. 

Affinity Water is exploring an alternative way of billing – what’s called a Rising Block Tariff. This means that households pay more per unit of water as their water consumption increases, so using a high volume of water would lead to a higher bill than today. Using a low volume of water would lead to a lower bill.    

In other words – the more you use, the higher the rate you pay. 

For example:  

• In a month, the first 10,000 litres (about 120 baths worth) are charged at e.g., 0.4 pence a litre.  
• But any consumption above 10,000 litres would cost more, say 0.6 pence a litre.  
• For context, a typical family of four might use around 14,000 litres a month. In this case, the first 10,000 litres would be charged at 0.4 pence per litre and the remaining 4,000 litres at 0.6 pence 

• For the very highest of users, an ultra-high use block could be introduced, e.g., every litre used after the first 20,000 might cost 1.0 pence per litre 

Affinity Water has no current plans to change to this progressive tariff – it’s purely exploratory at this stage. Thus, they want to know: 

What are your thoughts on this type of billing? How do you think progressive tariffs would impact you and your wider family?

1. As a matter of principle, I consider the Rising Block Tariff to be superior to the fixed rate tariff. For this reason, I would prefer the Rising Block Tariff.

2. However, by not taking into account how many people are living in the property, an extended family (of say, two parents, two children, an adult dependent and a grandparent) will soon be into paying the 'standard rate'. In contrast, a single professional person might be hard-pressed to consume anywhere near 10,000 litres/month, even though a greater proportion of their water use might be discretionary.

3. For reasons I have stated above, I should prefer it were the 'basic rate' also more differentiated from the 'standard rate'.

4. I have no objection to there being a 'ultra-high rate', and indeed, with the caveats given above, would consider the use of differential rates to be a valuable instrument for encouraging greater water economy.

How effective do you think progressive tariffs would be in reducing water consumption?  Please explain your answer.

Somewhat effective:

1. By setting expectations about water consumption, Affinity Water can encourage customers towards conforming to those expectations.

2. By providing a financial incentive to conform to water consumption expectations, customers will have a motivation to do so.

3. On the other hand, wealthy people appear to behave as though they believe that if they have the money with which to do so, then their wealth entitles them to do as they choose, with less regard for the environment.

In terms of your own bill, what impact do you think this is likely to have, and why do you think this? 

I think that I shall end up paying the same. I find it hard to believe that Affinity Water would set the block boundaries and the different water consumption rates such that there would end up being much difference in bills for the average family.

Would you ever consider switching to this sort of billing by choice?  

Please tell us why you chose that answer. If you wouldn’t consider switching, is there any extra information or incentives that might encourage you to do so? 

Yes. I approve of a charging mechanism that makes some attempt to differentiate between basic needs and discretionary needs.

Taking all things into consideration, do you think a rising block tariff is a fairer way of charging for water than the current flat charge per litre? 

A lot fairer.

Have you any concerns or issues with the progressive tariff, or have anything else you want to say about it?

I have ticked "A lot fairer", although I might have ticked "A little fairer" - it all depends on the details. The closer to a charging mechanism that recognises the importance of personal and public health to basic need for water, and charges for discretionary use, the fairer I would consider a progressive tariff to be. This would include a basic water allowance per person, not per household.

  

Monday 11 July 2022: Activities typical of a British summer

 Monday 11 July 2022: Activities Typical of a British Summer

1. Watching sports

I have no interest in spectating sports. I have DVDs to watch, books to read. books to write, music to make, music to compose, art to paint, a house to paint, an enormous garden to mow, weed and plant up, fruit and vegetables to harvest, lovely countryside in which to walk, exciting meals to cook (I recently learned to prepare and bake madeleines, and I have some crumpet rings with which to cook fresh crumpets), and some animation movie projects to realise. My family and I remain in long-term isolation away from the coronavirus. When we are able, once again, to visit places (other than the local pharmacy, the GP surgery and multiple hospitals), then there will be art galleries and museums to visit, as well as historic buildings and formal gardens, and the opportunity to speak some French, German, Italian and I am itching to try out my newly acquired Dutch. What would be the purpose in spending time spectating sports, watching someone else live their life instead of me living my own life?

2. Picnics

We have been effectively under house-arrest for the past 27 months. Picnics remain a possibility only in the distance that is the future. The collapsible canvas chairs we bought inexpensively in Tenterden five or six years ago are very comfortable and have identifiably improved the picnic experience over sitting on the ground. I am not really a picnic enthusiast, although my wife is. I suffer badly from insect bites. Trying to ward off biting insects tends to degrade my experience of a picnic. I am, on the other hand, enthusiastic about taking my Thermos flask with me, so that I have a fruit/herb tisane to sip. 

Although I am not wonderful at making pastry, I have sometimes made Puy lentil and vegetable pasties for picnics, most recently having just summited Snowdon. They are surprisingly good unheated. However, when we were in St. Ives a few years ago, visiting the Tate Gallery there, a seagull swooped down on us, and while still on the wing, snatched a pasty from my wife's hand. From my childhood, I remember Saviand, a kind of sausage or spam made exclusively from peanuts, that usually came with us on picnics. It was cheap (which is why we could afford it) and tasty. Unfortunately, I am no longer able to eat peanuts (or sesame seeds, for that matter), so a home-made Saviand is out-of-the-question. On the other hand, last year I discovered the delights of vital wheat gluten, and some of the foods I can make using it, such as seitan (mock duck). One preparation I have devised using vital wheat gluten, okara (bean and pearl barley residue from when I make plant milk), herbs and spices, steamed, chunked and lightly fried, makes a pleasantly chewy vegan jerky. My wife, daughter and I enjoy eating my freshly-made hummus (made with toasted sunflower seeds instead of tahini), which has long been an excellent staple for our picnics. I am also fond of cold ratatouille on picnics. I am especially fond of toasting sunflower seeds and pumpkin seeds and tossing the mixture in shoyu (soy sauce), although I have never tried taking this on a picnic as a grazing pot. Maybe next time. Whilst a pot of home-made fruit salad, with strawberries, raspberries and red currants from the garden would be both nice and refreshing, it would risk attracting wasps. We tend, therefore, to take with us little pots of nuts (walnuts, almonds and Brazil nuts) and dried fruit (currants, raisins, sultanas and dates). 

Sunday 10 July 2022: Malapropisms, mondegreens and eggcorns

 

Sunday 10 July 2022

Malapropisms, mondegreens and eggcorns

When I was a child, my father, brother and I enjoyed playing punning word games. These witty games involved a grasp of, and sharp understanding regarding, what words sounded similar to other words, might be confused for other words, or had similar but subtly different meanings, which could be played on. Shakespeare uses word play of a similar kind to marvellous, sparkling effect in exchanges between Beatrice and Benedick in Much Ado About Nothing. It is in the same play that Constable Dogberry frequently uses the wrong terms (malapropisms).

Below are some malapropisms/mondegreens/eggcorns that I have heard or otherwise encountered over the years.

1.      Several former counselling clients have confused the words ‘gamut’ and ‘gambit’. The word ‘gamut’ is less well known, and so the better-known word ‘gambit’, from the board game chess, is substituted.

2.      When referring to things which are psychologically or emotionally complex or difficult, several former counselling clients, as well as people I have heard talking on the radio, incorrectly use the term ‘mind field’ rather than the figurative use of the word ‘minefield’.

3.      It is a commonplace to hear people on the radio use the word ‘tenants’ (a common, everyday word regarding the status of people holding a tenancy) when what they are talking about are ‘tenets’ (a word meaning the principles of a belief, that is less well known).

4.      My mother always used to say ‘pacifically’ when she meant ‘specifically’.

5.      To be ‘on tender hooks” should actually read to be ‘on tenterhooks’. A tenter is the frame on which cloth is stretched when it is being made. The tenterhooks are the hooks or bent nails that hold the cloth. The idiom means to be held in suspense.

6.      ‘To all intensive purposes’, should read ‘to all intents and purposes’. An intent is the same as an intention or purpose’, whereas ‘intensive’ means having a high degree of intensity.

7.      In the 2010 movie The Tourist, the character Alexander Pearce/Frank Tupelo, played by Johnny Depp, says to Elise Clifton-Ward, played by Angelina Jolie: “You’re ravenous”. The exchange continues: “Do you mean ‘ravishing’?” “I do.” “You’re ravenous.” “I am.”

8.      A common American phrase is “I could care less” regarding circumstances in which what is plainly meant is “I could not care less.” I have never heard someone say it to me, and if they did, I would be tempted to ask them what it would be like for them to care less about the issue. I am mildly appalled that use of the phrase “I could care less”, intended to mean its precise opposite, has achieved widespread acceptance in the United States. I assume that this daft situation has come about because so many people in the United States have a heritage in other than the Anglophone world.

9. I have both heard (especially on the radio) and read people using the term 'simplistic' when what they mean is 'simple'. The word 'simplistic' points to an explanation having been reduced to a level of simplicity (reduction in precision) resulting in the explanation being inaccurate (that is, incorrect).

There are more common malapropisms, although I cannot recall them at the moment. I intend to add them to this document as they occur to me.