Thames Water

[Thunder Bolt]

Having recently spoken directly to someone who used to work in the water industry during public ownership, they said that the usual practice of the day was to have short fall outlet sewers running untreated sewage straight into the sea / rivers as the standard practice. they would use screens to try to catch some of it, but they often got clogged / damaged and would be removed allowing it to flow staight out of the sewers into the waterways

So where has this myth that it is a practice that has only been used since privatisation? and everything was rosy when in public hands?

Blue Flag beaches? They had to be earned.

 

[BrightonCottager]

Having recently spoken directly to someone who used to work in the water industry during public ownership, they said that the usual practice of the day was to have short fall outlet sewers running untreated sewage straight into the sea / rivers as the standard practice. they would use screens to try to catch some of it, but they often got clogged / damaged and would be removed allowing it to flow staight out of the sewers into the waterways

So where has this myth that it is a practice that has only been used since privatisation? and everything was rosy when in public hands?

Not from me, as I was surfing in that in the 1980s and 90s. The point is that privatisation was supposed to solve the issue once and for all, but water companies (especially Southern) generally did the bare minimum at the last possible moment while collecting our water bills, paying huge dividends and big wages and bonuses. It took the threat of prosecution by the EU to force progress on our and Blackpool's wastewater treatment. Add to that, over the last couple of decades there's been the practice of offshoring and racking up debt while under investing and, in Southern's case, lying and covering up the sewage spills. Another big change - particularly since covid - has been increased awareness thanks to all the new swimmers, paddleboarders and people like Feargal Sharkey.

 

[BrightonCottager]

Worth a read

Time to pull the plug on the water privatisation model - Dieter Helm

A look at what has gone wrong with the UK water privatisation model, and what needs to be done to ensure a good quality water service.

dieterhelm.co.uk

 

[Baldseagull]

Having recently spoken directly to someone who used to work in the water industry during public ownership, they said that the usual practice of the day was to have short fall outlet sewers running untreated sewage straight into the sea / rivers as the standard practice. they would use screens to try to catch some of it, but they often got clogged / damaged and would be removed allowing it to flow staight out of the sewers into the waterways

So where has this myth that it is a practice that has only been used since privatisation? and everything was rosy when in public hands?

The largely Victorian system was designed to just flush shit into the sea, via rivers. The Water companies were supposed to rectify this, and reduce the massive quantity of water lost through leaks in the system of supply of clean water. The water companies have had all the money needed to make the improvements required, but they chose to pay out big dividends instead. The price rises now are needed to pay the interest on the debt that was raised, in order to pay dividends, not debts raised for infrastructure improvements, the fees we have all been paying more than cover that.

It's a complete red herring to say that it was worse before, the problem is that they have had 30 years, and all the money required to stop shit flowing untreated into rivers, but it's still happening. If the old Water Board had had 30 years and all the money required, it would not be happening still. Not only have they failed to achieve the improvements, they are now failing to survive financially, with a f***ing monopoly on something every household needs, and they pay bonuses!

OFWAT should not have allowed this to happen, and I think the people who should have been looking out for us have been corrupted, OFWAT Execs taking Directorships with the Water Companies later is not a good look.

 

[Adders1]

Banks and insurers have to run at (albeit still quite flexible) capital ratios, why should public services be allowed to be levered to the hilt - I read it’s something like 15bn GBP. How did that happen?

 

[Baldseagull]

Banks and insurers have to run at (albeit still quite flexible) capital ratios, why should public services be allowed to be levered to the hilt - I read it’s something like 15bn GBP. How did that happen?

Because they have a monopoly, contracts take 25 years to run down if Government gives notice to terminate, so they can borrow against the next 25 years of profits.

 

[adub68]

Having recently spoken directly to someone who used to work in the water industry during public ownership, they said that the usual practice of the day was to have short fall outlet sewers running untreated sewage straight into the sea / rivers as the standard practice. they would use screens to try to catch some of it, but they often got clogged / damaged and would be removed allowing it to flow staight out of the sewers into the waterways

So where has this myth that it is a practice that has only been used since privatisation? and everything was rosy when in public hands?

You are correct. Our system was actually designed to spill and has been since the Victorian age.

My work is related to the sector and there is so much that is incorrect in this stream of commentary its difficult to make a comment.

For example Macq/Thames dont own the Thames Tideway tunnel. it was competiveiy tendered on the insistence of the Regulator and is owned by a consortium of infrastructure investors. It has ita own regulated price control. Thames is a customer of Tideway and all of Thames customers will pay for it - irrespective of whether they are impacted from spills from the Thames or not. If we want the Thames to be cleaner than it have been since Victoria then we have to pay for it - its simple

Part of the reason why bills may exceed inflation in the next regulatory period (5 yearly periods) is becuase for the first time we are going to legislate to reduce spills - the investment case that will become legislation includes £68bn of additional capital expenditure across the industry. It seems for some oxidising some rivers that a small number of people swim in (or fish in) is a highrr priority than other essential infrastructure

the article on the water sector not paying much corporation tax is completely misleading - they pay little taxation becuase (a) debt interst is tax deductible - which is cheaper for the customer than equity financing and (b) the companies (like all companies) receive tax depreciation for capital expenditure over a shorter/quicker period than accounting depreciation. Neither of these are aggressive at all - they are not even avoidance let alone evasion.

 

[adub68]

It's another example of under investment under public owner that was thrown to the private wolves whose primary motive is to draw profit and dividends.

A really dumb Thatcher era privatisation that simply turned a public monopoly into a private one. The complete antithesis of capitalism. It just gets the shit show off the books and someone else's problem. The Conservatives couldn't give a flying f### about the water supply as long as doesn't hit them at the election.

The railways not much different.

The "is was just as bad before privatisation" is a false equivalence. You can vote Governments out, you can't do that with these private monopolies.

Dont entirely agree. You had an opportunity to vote for a party at a recent election who had a manifesto policy commitment to renationalise the Water sector (labour under JC). The majority voted against...

 

[Badger Boy]

Dont entirely agree. You had an opportunity to vote for a party at a recent election who had a manifesto policy commitment to renationalise the Water sector (labour under JC). The majority voted against...

Hardly a vote based on water company ownership, was it.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Dont entirely agree. You had an opportunity to vote for a party at a recent election who had a manifesto policy commitment to renationalise the Water sector (labour under JC). The majority voted against...

I don't think you can count as a majority voted against - just because Labour lost it doesn't mean anyone who voted for another party disagreed with all Labour policies.

I'd happily see water and the railways re-nationalised but I didn't vote Labour for other reasons.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I don't think you can count as a majority voted against - just because Labour lost it doesn't mean anyone who voted for another party disagreed with all Labour policies.

I'd happily see water and the railways re-nationalised but I didn't vote Labour for other reasons.

Yes you could argue that JC’s unpopularity amoung many voters, it was those key policies were the ones that did get Labour a sizeable vote share 2017 and 19.

 

[Nobby]

A private company is run for the benefit of its shareholders.
Not employees, or the public.
Privatisation of water, gas and electric, the railways, may have made these operations more efficient but not for the benefit of us ordinary folk.
Unless there are such stringent controls that limit their powers to benefitting the public not their shareholders
Are there haven’t been enough controls
Capitalism in a nutshell innit.

 

[Doonhamer7]

Having worked in the water industry a few years ago, there is a bit of misunderstanding across the media about what actually happens. The water companies were privatised because we had to implement the EU water quality (clean and dirty) directives and the cost was huge as like all infrastructure we hadn’t invested for decades. Thatcher didn’t want this investment debt on the national debt, so privatisation moved the debt to private companies. The water companies create 5 year Asset Management Plans (AMP), each AMP has had different priorities but started with the big wastewater treatment plants (I think Brighton’s wasn’t until AMP3 due to planning issues). The AMP included CAPEX (new investment) and OPEX(running costs), so in AMP 1 and 2 a lot was done to make water companies more efficient (and they were very inefficient), either through automation, night time operation (reduces electricity bill), reduced staffing, more efficient machinery etc.
the combined sewer / drainage outfalls CSO were near the bottom of the list and some haven’t been done yet (although some have). The AMP has to be approved by OFWAT (and this includes how much profit they can make).

Rory Stewart said when he was Environment Secretary he prioritised air pollution over CSOs as air pollution kills a lot more people (over 20,000 a year) than sewage discharges which required billions of investments.

 

[Bold Seagull]

A private company is run for the benefit of its shareholders.
Not employees, or the public.
Privatisation of water, gas and electric, the railways, may have made these operations more efficient but not for the benefit of us ordinary folk.
Unless there are such stringent controls that limit their powers to benefitting the public not their shareholders
Are there haven’t been enough controls
Capitalism in a nutshell innit.

Just seen on the news headlines. TW paid out £15bn to shareholders since privatisation. Now £14bn in debt - 80% of the company value! Their last CE got a £0.5m annual bonus only a year or so ago!

 

[Horses Arse]

hmm, not sure you understood the point. how are you to "penalise" an organisation that is following the rules you have laid down for them to follow?

How are they following the rules if they pay zero Corp tax whilst making huge profits and dividend payments?

Didn't think dividends offset Corp tax

 

[Westdene Seagull]

A private company is run for the benefit of its shareholders.
Not employees, or the public.
Privatisation of water, gas and electric, the railways, may have made these operations more efficient but not for the benefit of us ordinary folk.
Unless there are such stringent controls that limit their powers to benefitting the public not their shareholders
Are there haven’t been enough controls
Capitalism in a nutshell innit.

Though there are industries that have benefited the consumer by being privatised. Let's take telecoms for example. If we'd stuck with the old BT there is no way we'd have seen the investment in internet connectivity in the last 20 years. NTL, now Virgin, has sunk millions into getting a fibre network in place for a good percentage of the population. This has forced BT to do the same. The unbundling of exchanges has allowed companies like City Fibre and Air Band to join the party. Piggyback services such as Sky Broadband and Giff Gaff and Tesco mobile wouldn't exist if there was the old BT monopoly. The problem now is that internet access is so vital to everyday living do we want it in the hands of private companies ?

To a lesser extent you could argue gas and electric, until recently, has benefited from competition after privatisation. Yet again though, should vital services be in the hands of private companies ?

I'm fairly supportive of privatisation when there is competition to allow the consumer to benefit but water and railways don't have that competition and therefore should be nationalised industries.

 

[Randy McNob]

Yes you could argue that JC’s unpopularity amoung many voters, it was those key policies were the ones that did get Labour a sizeable vote share 2017 and 19.

This is a complete red-herring, the idea that Corbyn and his flavour of politics was universally unpopular and wholly rejected by the electorate. Labour lost the 2019 election heavily which was fought on one issue - Brexit and voters poured onto the Tories side but prior to that in 2017 Corbyn delivered Labour's biggest share of the vote since their landslide win in 2001. More than Brown, Milliband and even Blair in 2005. The Tufton street mafia want everyone to ignore that and focus purely on 2019 and the belief that the British public find socialist policies repellent. The truth is the Big Corps and right wing media were so scared of Corbyn and an uprising they did everything to smear and disgrace him.

If the electorate were asked directly about nationalisation i'd be confident they would vote overwhelmingly in favour, that's got nothing to do with whether they would vote labour, people want a country and public services that work for the benefit of the consumer - is that a left wing position?

 

[mikeyjh]

Though there are industries that have benefited the consumer by being privatised. Let's take telecoms for example. If we'd stuck with the old BT there is no way we'd have seen the investment in internet connectivity in the last 20 years. NTL, now Virgin, has sunk millions into getting a fibre network in place for a good percentage of the population. This has forced BT to do the same. The unbundling of exchanges has allowed companies like City Fibre and Air Band to join the party. Piggyback services such as Sky Broadband and Giff Gaff and Tesco mobile wouldn't exist if there was the old BT monopoly. The problem now is that internet access is so vital to everyday living do we want it in the hands of private companies ?

To a lesser extent you could argue gas and electric, until recently, has benefited from competition after privatisation. Yet again though, should vital services be in the hands of private companies ?

I'm fairly supportive of privatisation when there is competition to allow the consumer to benefit but water and railways don't have that competition and therefore should be nationalised industries.

But BT were prevented from rolling out fibre over 30 years ago because of their (part) privatisation at the time. The major infrastructure elements of these industries should be state provisioned IMO, the mobile companies all having their own masts is barking, absolutely mad and a good reason why we have such poor coverage in rural areas.

I agree with much of what you say though, Internet access is now effectively essential to everyday life and should be treated as such.

 

[Bold Seagull]

This is a complete red-herring, the idea that Corbyn and his flavour of politics was universally unpopular and wholly rejected by the electorate. Labour lost the 2019 election heavily which was fought on one issue - Brexit and voters poured onto the Tories side but prior to that in 2017 Corbyn delivered Labour's biggest share of the vote since their landslide win in 2001. More than Brown, Milliband and even Blair in 2005. The Tufton street mafia want everyone to ignore that and focus purely on 2019 and the belief that the British public find socialist policies repellent. The truth is the Big Corps and right wing media were so scared of Corbyn and an uprising they did everything to smear and disgrace him.

If the electorate were asked directly about nationalisation i'd be confident they would vote overwhelmingly in favour, that's got nothing to do with whether they would vote labour, people want a country and public services that work for the benefit of the consumer - is that a left wing position?

Didn’t say it was universally unpopular or rejected. Think I said his policies were the reason he got such a large slice of the vote share. Public ownership of utilities and services is a left wing position yes because the right wing position is to privatise.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

A private company is run for the benefit of its shareholders.
Not employees, or the public.
Privatisation of water, gas and electric, the railways, may have made these operations more efficient but not for the benefit of us ordinary folk.
Unless there are such stringent controls that limit their powers to benefitting the public not their shareholders
Are there haven’t been enough controls
Capitalism in a nutshell innit.

I worked in the Gas industry - British Gas - until 1983. When they started privatising things, I just had an immediate feeling that it was wrong - immoral even - for the basic utilities like gas, electric and water to be privatised.

But of course privatisation was going to free them all up to raise money in creative ways to give us a much better service all round and probably cheaper…….. er, but people will expect to make a profit out of this!

And then I remember when Railtrack was reprivatised, there were people bleating that this was their pension money and it was not right that their future should be mucked around with like this! I thought at the time “these are shares, you idiot. shares inherently carry an element of risk. If you’re not prepared to take that risk, you DON’T buy shares. If the privatisation has been bungled and the whole thing has been s disaster, then tough. You lose out!”

so of course now all the pension funds and international institutions that invest in things like Thames Water will either be stumping up the readies to rescue things or will be seeing their huge investments go the way of all flesh! Right, yes….. as if! the British taxpayer and/or the customers will bear the brunt of all this while all the clever accountants and business people will be riding off in to the sunset having made their fortunes.

It makes me sick! Very angry. And as usual, it’s all Thatcher’s fault!