https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatisation_in_England_and_Wales
From the section titled "Impact" :
" England and Wales became the only countries in the world to have a fully privatised water and sewage disposal system.[1][17] In Scotland and Northern Ireland, water and sewerage services remained in public ownership. Since 2001, Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, the company which supplies drinking water and wastewater services to most of Wales and parts of western England, has operated as a single-purpose, not-for-profit company with no shareholders, "run solely for the benefit of customers".[18] According to The Independent, the English WSCs are now mostly owned "by private equity firms with controversial tax-avoidance strategies".[19] Public opinion polling carried out in 2017 indicated that 83% of the British public favoured renationalisation of all water services.[20]
In the same year, research by the University of Greenwich suggested that consumers in England were paying £2.3 billion more every year for their water and sewerage bills than they would if the water companies had remained under state ownership.[17]
By 2024, the rise in inflation and interest rates left several water companies with unsustainable debt loads.[21] Water companies sharply increased bills,[22] with several proposed increases being rejected by Ofwat despite claims that they were necessary to keep companies solvent.[23] In response, academics have criticised the privatisation of water for allowing too much debt to be taken on by companies that have significant amounts of private equity among their investors.[24] "
Water was sold off cheap to a profit orientated business, profits before people. I'm the opposite of a Lefty but water is essential to life, it should never be a proposition for private investment firms. As a nation we're good at wringing our hands and then avoiding the problems altogether.
Here is another article with balanced opinions from all angles but again, we see no action, it's worth a read:
https://www.ciwem.org/the-environment/how-should-water-and-environmental-management-firms-tap,-retain-and-promote-female-talent
It's interesting to see those rotters from Liebour waffle on, yet here we are.
From the section titled "Impact" :
" England and Wales became the only countries in the world to have a fully privatised water and sewage disposal system.[1][17] In Scotland and Northern Ireland, water and sewerage services remained in public ownership. Since 2001, Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, the company which supplies drinking water and wastewater services to most of Wales and parts of western England, has operated as a single-purpose, not-for-profit company with no shareholders, "run solely for the benefit of customers".[18] According to The Independent, the English WSCs are now mostly owned "by private equity firms with controversial tax-avoidance strategies".[19] Public opinion polling carried out in 2017 indicated that 83% of the British public favoured renationalisation of all water services.[20]
In the same year, research by the University of Greenwich suggested that consumers in England were paying £2.3 billion more every year for their water and sewerage bills than they would if the water companies had remained under state ownership.[17]
By 2024, the rise in inflation and interest rates left several water companies with unsustainable debt loads.[21] Water companies sharply increased bills,[22] with several proposed increases being rejected by Ofwat despite claims that they were necessary to keep companies solvent.[23] In response, academics have criticised the privatisation of water for allowing too much debt to be taken on by companies that have significant amounts of private equity among their investors.[24] "
Water was sold off cheap to a profit orientated business, profits before people. I'm the opposite of a Lefty but water is essential to life, it should never be a proposition for private investment firms. As a nation we're good at wringing our hands and then avoiding the problems altogether.
Here is another article with balanced opinions from all angles but again, we see no action, it's worth a read:
https://www.ciwem.org/the-environment/how-should-water-and-environmental-management-firms-tap,-retain-and-promote-female-talent
It's interesting to see those rotters from Liebour waffle on, yet here we are.
In reply to Post #16
Thanks for the ciwem link Paul, I'd not seen the article before.
To re iterate my point about it also being a governmental failing, below is a short quote from the article:
"But the ineffectiveness of Ofwat is another failed aspect of the system. Companies have been able to repeatedly game the price-regulation formulae to boost profits and extract dividends without critical scrutiny. They rely on Ofwat to act publicly as their defender – rather than a protector of consumer rights."
One could be forgiven for thinking that 40 years of corruption has led to this sorry state, of which our children, grand children and great grandchildren will be paying for.
Thanks for the ciwem link Paul, I'd not seen the article before.
To re iterate my point about it also being a governmental failing, below is a short quote from the article:
"But the ineffectiveness of Ofwat is another failed aspect of the system. Companies have been able to repeatedly game the price-regulation formulae to boost profits and extract dividends without critical scrutiny. They rely on Ofwat to act publicly as their defender – rather than a protector of consumer rights."
One could be forgiven for thinking that 40 years of corruption has led to this sorry state, of which our children, grand children and great grandchildren will be paying for.
In reply to Post #17
Hi Winkler, yes, a combination of Snivil Service ineptitude, corporate greed and government laziness. Utilities should never have been sold off, many to overseas interests.
This is what we reap for their failings. These outfits knew what they were getting into, knew what they could siphon off and knew there would be little consequence for their actions.
Hi Winkler, yes, a combination of Snivil Service ineptitude, corporate greed and government laziness. Utilities should never have been sold off, many to overseas interests.
This is what we reap for their failings. These outfits knew what they were getting into, knew what they could siphon off and knew there would be little consequence for their actions.
In reply to Post #15
"So you think it's reasonable to expect water companies to magically fix the entire water network in a matter of hours? Days? Weeks?"
"There are so many complexities to it, but if you believe there is a quick and easy way then I'm sure water companies would want to hear it."
Where in my posts have I demanded a quick fix? You're the person who keeps bringing it up because I suspect that it fits your narrative. It gives you the opportunity to reiterate & deflect the blame. You say that you're not defending the companies however this is what you're consistently doing. Your emotional investment & knowledge suggests that you may have some kind of connection to the industry?
There is no quick fix but having the companies accountable for their actions may be a good start. I'm in support of the law change & this will hopefully kick start plans to solve the issues.
As I've already said, I don't know the answers & I don't need to because I pay my water company for this. I like to think that these are the people who would be best suited to finding the solutions.
"So you think it's reasonable to expect water companies to magically fix the entire water network in a matter of hours? Days? Weeks?"
"There are so many complexities to it, but if you believe there is a quick and easy way then I'm sure water companies would want to hear it."
Where in my posts have I demanded a quick fix? You're the person who keeps bringing it up because I suspect that it fits your narrative. It gives you the opportunity to reiterate & deflect the blame. You say that you're not defending the companies however this is what you're consistently doing. Your emotional investment & knowledge suggests that you may have some kind of connection to the industry?
There is no quick fix but having the companies accountable for their actions may be a good start. I'm in support of the law change & this will hopefully kick start plans to solve the issues.
As I've already said, I don't know the answers & I don't need to because I pay my water company for this. I like to think that these are the people who would be best suited to finding the solutions.
In reply to Post #19
Explaining the realism of the situation is not defending them. It's to show that not everything is as simple as is made out.
I don't mean you directly, but the general consensus of those that want to shoot the water companies is that it will just be fixed tomorrow. I'm explaining why that's impossible. People need realistic expectations.
I've spent most of my career in river conservation, so I know the issues inside out. Hence why I can explain it all to people that won't know. If you'd rather not know, don't engage? Ignorance is bliss as they say.
Be prepared to pay your water company a hell of a lot more in the future. Like I said, your annual bill barely covers 2 days labour for a construction worker.
I think water should not be privatised, not that it'll solve anything unless the entire regulatory system is revamped.
Explaining the realism of the situation is not defending them. It's to show that not everything is as simple as is made out.
I don't mean you directly, but the general consensus of those that want to shoot the water companies is that it will just be fixed tomorrow. I'm explaining why that's impossible. People need realistic expectations.
I've spent most of my career in river conservation, so I know the issues inside out. Hence why I can explain it all to people that won't know. If you'd rather not know, don't engage? Ignorance is bliss as they say.
Be prepared to pay your water company a hell of a lot more in the future. Like I said, your annual bill barely covers 2 days labour for a construction worker.
I think water should not be privatised, not that it'll solve anything unless the entire regulatory system is revamped.
In reply to Post #20
"I've spent most of my career in river conservation"
Then your particular one sided stance seems odd to me.
"If you'd rather not know, don't engage?"
Where have I indicated this in my posts? Is your opinion the only one that's valid?
"Ignorance is bliss as they say."
My Spidey Senses tell me that you're trying to draw me into an argument..
"your annual bill barely covers 2 days labour for a construction worker."
& Then multiply this by how many million in each region?
"Be prepared to pay your water company a hell of a lot more in the future."
If it means that our rivers & lakes will be preserved then it's a price I'd be willing to pay.
What angler wouldn't want this?
"I've spent most of my career in river conservation"
Then your particular one sided stance seems odd to me.
"If you'd rather not know, don't engage?"
Where have I indicated this in my posts? Is your opinion the only one that's valid?
"Ignorance is bliss as they say."
My Spidey Senses tell me that you're trying to draw me into an argument..
"your annual bill barely covers 2 days labour for a construction worker."
& Then multiply this by how many million in each region?
"Be prepared to pay your water company a hell of a lot more in the future."
If it means that our rivers & lakes will be preserved then it's a price I'd be willing to pay.
What angler wouldn't want this?
In reply to Post #21
It's not one sided. Just showing the side that no one campaigning for change is willing to talk about. Which provides a fully informed conversation and not a one sided one.
Why is that not acceptable to you?
Not sure why you keep telling me I'm against the problems being fixed? Because I've clearly said I do, just I have realistic expectations because of the knowledge I have. Which I am sharing.
Multiply it up and it doesn't touch the sides on what's required. Hence it's a long term fix which is my point.
You clearly don't want to listen to what I have to say, because at no point have you indicated that you've taken it on board, as they are all facts as to why this isn't as simple an issue it's made out to be. That's your prerogative, but you can't come to the conclusion someone who is providing the full picture is somehow against sorting the issue. I won't go in to who you sound like by doing that.
I'm not going to waste my Sunday on your seeming need to villainise someone that's providing the full picture. I've provided anyone reading the thread a wider knowledge of the issues so they can make informed views of it all.
It's not one sided. Just showing the side that no one campaigning for change is willing to talk about. Which provides a fully informed conversation and not a one sided one.
Why is that not acceptable to you?
Not sure why you keep telling me I'm against the problems being fixed? Because I've clearly said I do, just I have realistic expectations because of the knowledge I have. Which I am sharing.
Multiply it up and it doesn't touch the sides on what's required. Hence it's a long term fix which is my point.
You clearly don't want to listen to what I have to say, because at no point have you indicated that you've taken it on board, as they are all facts as to why this isn't as simple an issue it's made out to be. That's your prerogative, but you can't come to the conclusion someone who is providing the full picture is somehow against sorting the issue. I won't go in to who you sound like by doing that.
I'm not going to waste my Sunday on your seeming need to villainise someone that's providing the full picture. I've provided anyone reading the thread a wider knowledge of the issues so they can make informed views of it all.
In reply to Post #22
"Why is that not acceptable to you?"
I said that I find it odd. I respect your opinions, I just don't fully agree or understand.
"Not sure why you keep telling me I'm against the problems being fixed?"
Did I say this?
"You clearly don't want to listen to what I have to say, because at no point have you indicated that you've taken it on board"
That's my bad. It's obviously something I need to work on.
"I'm not going to waste my Sunday on your seeming need to villainise someone that's providing the full picture."
That's a little over the top. I don't think your a villain & I doubt anyone else does on here. That wasn't my intention & I'm sorry you feel that way, my apologies. It may well turn out to be me that's the villain, I don't know, my opinions are my own & I'm not speaking for anyone else.
"I've provided anyone reading the thread a wider knowledge of the issues so they can make informed views of it all".
& Thank you for your contribution.
Enjoy your Sunday & I genuinely hope you come back to share more.
"Why is that not acceptable to you?"
I said that I find it odd. I respect your opinions, I just don't fully agree or understand.
"Not sure why you keep telling me I'm against the problems being fixed?"
Did I say this?
"You clearly don't want to listen to what I have to say, because at no point have you indicated that you've taken it on board"
That's my bad. It's obviously something I need to work on.
"I'm not going to waste my Sunday on your seeming need to villainise someone that's providing the full picture."
That's a little over the top. I don't think your a villain & I doubt anyone else does on here. That wasn't my intention & I'm sorry you feel that way, my apologies. It may well turn out to be me that's the villain, I don't know, my opinions are my own & I'm not speaking for anyone else.
"I've provided anyone reading the thread a wider knowledge of the issues so they can make informed views of it all".
& Thank you for your contribution.
Enjoy your Sunday & I genuinely hope you come back to share more.
In reply to Post #21
To be fair Greekskii has a more nuanced view of the situation, and as I said in an earlier post, yes, the water companies share a significant proportion of being responsible for the state of our rivers, but Ofwat, the EA, and the government are clearly seen to be responsible for letting the WA's get away with it by setting fines that are simply more cost effective for them to settle, than to pay for the required upgrade works, which in many cases, they decline to proceed after substantial design efforts have been made, on the grounds that they do not have the budget. 80% of the upgrade schemes either get cut down to the bare minimum, or do not get approved for construction at all.
Privatisation was clearly a huge mistake for the environmental reasons alone, which no one is arguing against, but the real problem runs far deeper than water company executive's.
To be fair Greekskii has a more nuanced view of the situation, and as I said in an earlier post, yes, the water companies share a significant proportion of being responsible for the state of our rivers, but Ofwat, the EA, and the government are clearly seen to be responsible for letting the WA's get away with it by setting fines that are simply more cost effective for them to settle, than to pay for the required upgrade works, which in many cases, they decline to proceed after substantial design efforts have been made, on the grounds that they do not have the budget. 80% of the upgrade schemes either get cut down to the bare minimum, or do not get approved for construction at all.
Privatisation was clearly a huge mistake for the environmental reasons alone, which no one is arguing against, but the real problem runs far deeper than water company executive's.
In reply to Post #24
Agreed.
Agreed.
In reply to Post #11
I think people need to do a lot more reading around it all so they can get the full picture.
As a retired engineer and still a member of British water I get emails regularly on what's going on in various locations and can attend meetings and vote on certain things within the industry. It's a fact that since privatisation the water companies have not invested enough in modernization and increasing capacity. You could argue that ofwat price caps have restricted growth but I believe if any industry should never be private it's the water .
I think people need to do a lot more reading around it all so they can get the full picture.
As a retired engineer and still a member of British water I get emails regularly on what's going on in various locations and can attend meetings and vote on certain things within the industry. It's a fact that since privatisation the water companies have not invested enough in modernization and increasing capacity. You could argue that ofwat price caps have restricted growth but I believe if any industry should never be private it's the water .
In reply to Post #26
It's a fact that since privatization the water companies have not invested enough in modernization and increasing capacity
No surprise there, same with all the industry they sold down the rivers pardon the pun, washed their hands of them. Government are a shower of ****, all of them
Some level headed thinking required instead of invested interests, its the environment ffs
It's a fact that since privatization the water companies have not invested enough in modernization and increasing capacity
No surprise there, same with all the industry they sold down the rivers pardon the pun, washed their hands of them. Government are a shower of ****, all of them
Some level headed thinking required instead of invested interests, its the environment ffs
The utility companies which everyone rely on in their daily lives should not be Public or privately owned or run!
I've said for years that they should be run on an Independent basis to provide the service required on a strictly none profit basis, with zero Government involvement.
It's not rocket science, it's very easy to work out the exact daily cost per end user, and how much extra to add to the bill to cover the cost for planned up-grades.
No profit, no shareholders, no Government parasites, just run to provide the service – that's how it should be.
I've said for years that they should be run on an Independent basis to provide the service required on a strictly none profit basis, with zero Government involvement.
It's not rocket science, it's very easy to work out the exact daily cost per end user, and how much extra to add to the bill to cover the cost for planned up-grades.
No profit, no shareholders, no Government parasites, just run to provide the service – that's how it should be.
In reply to Post #28
I'm glad someone else thinks like that.
I'm glad someone else thinks like that.
In reply to Post #28
Metering would be fare if every user was metered and paid by usage but a vast amount still do not have meters. As has already been said local authorities don't know what the future hold in terms of demand for supply and waste treatment as new developments get pushed forward or put back. Even the hotels that were only forty percent average occupancy for years can suddenly become full on government contracts massively increasing demand on both supply and waste treatment. Today I received an invitation from British water to attend a conference being held next month on micro pollutants,this is potentially a massive issue that will require massive investment and I can see the water companies looking for financial support from the government.
Metering would be fare if every user was metered and paid by usage but a vast amount still do not have meters. As has already been said local authorities don't know what the future hold in terms of demand for supply and waste treatment as new developments get pushed forward or put back. Even the hotels that were only forty percent average occupancy for years can suddenly become full on government contracts massively increasing demand on both supply and waste treatment. Today I received an invitation from British water to attend a conference being held next month on micro pollutants,this is potentially a massive issue that will require massive investment and I can see the water companies looking for financial support from the government.