The key water industry question is how much the companies, and their customers, should be forced to spend to improve its infrastructure and so reduce leaks and sewage discharges.
I am agnostic about public/private ownership. All monopolies are bad and the pre-Thatcher state-owned water industry invested too little and was inefficient. Privatisation cured that, for quite a few years, but it has hardly been a recent success for reasons that both Simon and I try to summarise.
Sadly, I doubt that re-nationalisation would be the answer unless ministers were the willing to increase water bills (or taxation) to fund the necessary infrastructure. But this government seems pretty cowardly on that front.
I enjoyed yours too. Looking forward to reading your more recent post later. Whether renationalising is the best option now is a matter for debate, but that it should never have been privatised in the first place is something I believe with every fibre in my body. Our water is a shame on Thatcher, and shame on every government since. Though, I suspect Starmer will be carrying a burden heavier than even that.
I read this article right around the time I was completing a piece of my own which takes the position that political interference is one of the factors that has damaged regulation of the water industry. So now I am trying to decide whether your article above undermines my argument (https://simoncarne.substack.com/p/uk-water-industry-changes-hope-or-hype).
My natural instinct is to agree with your opening point that it is for politicians, not regulators, to choose between higher water bills or higher sewage discharges. But there are so many years between the decision to upgrade the sewage system and the moment when the upgrade can be used that we are asking today’s politicians to make decisions about events that will affect customers after many of those politicians have passed on to another place.
I would like to think that politicians could set a long-term framework and allow regulators to work within it unhindered by short-term exigencies.
Thanks Simon. I don't think our views are very far apart. My initial draft argued - like you - that the regulator should be left to make the charges/discharges trade off. It is a classic long term decision that is best taken by non-politicians. But then I chickened out and concluded that the decision had such an obvious public impact that politicians could not wash their hands of it.
Not me reading everyone’s Thames Water takes like an absolute weirdo. Here’s mine if you fancy a gander: https://resistancepropaganda.substack.com/p/everything-is-shit
Thanks Nancy. I enjoyed your piece.
I am agnostic about public/private ownership. All monopolies are bad and the pre-Thatcher state-owned water industry invested too little and was inefficient. Privatisation cured that, for quite a few years, but it has hardly been a recent success for reasons that both Simon and I try to summarise.
Sadly, I doubt that re-nationalisation would be the answer unless ministers were the willing to increase water bills (or taxation) to fund the necessary infrastructure. But this government seems pretty cowardly on that front.
I enjoyed yours too. Looking forward to reading your more recent post later. Whether renationalising is the best option now is a matter for debate, but that it should never have been privatised in the first place is something I believe with every fibre in my body. Our water is a shame on Thatcher, and shame on every government since. Though, I suspect Starmer will be carrying a burden heavier than even that.
I read this article right around the time I was completing a piece of my own which takes the position that political interference is one of the factors that has damaged regulation of the water industry. So now I am trying to decide whether your article above undermines my argument (https://simoncarne.substack.com/p/uk-water-industry-changes-hope-or-hype).
My natural instinct is to agree with your opening point that it is for politicians, not regulators, to choose between higher water bills or higher sewage discharges. But there are so many years between the decision to upgrade the sewage system and the moment when the upgrade can be used that we are asking today’s politicians to make decisions about events that will affect customers after many of those politicians have passed on to another place.
I would like to think that politicians could set a long-term framework and allow regulators to work within it unhindered by short-term exigencies.
Thanks Simon. I don't think our views are very far apart. My initial draft argued - like you - that the regulator should be left to make the charges/discharges trade off. It is a classic long term decision that is best taken by non-politicians. But then I chickened out and concluded that the decision had such an obvious public impact that politicians could not wash their hands of it.
Fascinating!!