Can you not be so aggressive in the replies. What was wrong with starting it - Sorry, but the truth of the matter etc etc.
Sorry, the truth of the matter is that I was frankly gobsmacked by the suggestion that the privatised water industry had invested, quote, "a lot more than if water had remained I public ownership"
Water wasn't privatised by the Tories because they felt there hadn't been enough investment. If they gave any reason at all for privatisation apart from the usual "nationalisation is socialist and therefore bad" it was the false claim that it would bring down prices for consumers.
But yeah, point taken, I need to remind myself more often that I'm polite company and not talking to mates. 👍
Edit : Btw I thought I was being polite by saying "what on earth are you talking about", I rarely use language like that 😉
water was publicly owned for several thousands of years before privatisation, it's been crisis stricken ever since then.
What an earth are you talking about? Fomalised water supply as we know it today only came into existence in Victorian times. Before that people got water from their local well, stream or muddy puddle. The Victorians created much of the infrastructure we still use. The truth of the matter is the public water supply was on its knees before it was privatised, partly due to terrible unionised workforce and partly due to next to no investment in previous decades. Thatcher decided to tackle both issues by privatising the industry. Initially at least significant investment was made to stabilise and improve supply and waste water treatment. Has I been enough to keep up with demand, climate change and higher standards, no not really. Would Thatchers government have invested billions into the utilities, of course not.
What an earth are you talking about? Fomalised water supply as we know it today only came into existence in Victorian times.
I beg your pardon people were using water long before the Victorians arrived, and it wasn't privatised!
The truth of the matter is the public water supply was on its knees before it was privatised
My dear old chap what are you talking about, are you jesting with me?
In what way was the water supply "on its knees before it was privatised"? People didn't have clean water to drink? Not enough to have a decent bath? They couldn't afford to pay the bills? I actually remember a time when there was no such thing as "a water bill", the cost of the unlimited water supply was included in the council rates and not itemised.
And you would like us to believe that privateers enthusiastically bought an industry "on it's knees"?
Why would they do that? Do tell 💡
When Zak gets onto properly green politics I warm to him.
The privatisations that have worked for the public have been the ones where true competition is possible. Mobile phones, postal services... . Going from a public monopoly infrastructure to a private monopoly just adds costs and an incentive to put profit before service.
The truth of the matter is the public water supply was on its knees before it was privatised
It's on its arse now.
They do that - like with the NHS they under-invest and say we need to privatise.
private monopoly just adds costs and an incentive to put profit before service.
Don't forget many of them are just borrowing money to survive!
They've effectively already failed many times over.
You can talk about water supply if you want but the thing is that people are angry with the water companies mainly because of sewer overflow discharges.
You can’t compare the situation before privatization with how things are now. Before there were whole cities which had direct discharges to the sea with no treatment.
The number of overflow events was much higher and most overflows had inadequate screens and there was no way of knowing how often they discharged.
We have a long way to go to get to where we need to be. But simply nationalizing will not be enough.
The truth of the matter is the public water supply was on its knees before it was privatised, partly due to terrible unionised workforce and partly due to next to no investment in previous decades.
I was one of that workforce. When there was a strike I used to invite one of the picket line into the plant to see that I was only taking samples. They were responsible people who didn't want anyone drinking unsafe water, not even their kids. I'd qualify my colleagues at Welsh water as some of the most competant, commited, professional, hard working and caring I've worked with, and in my short career I worked in more sectors than most.
There was a program of investments with the objective of meeting Euro standards, then came privatisiation and mostly nothing happened which as plants and infrastucture only have a limited life meant things went backwards. If you're looking for an early water supply system then Mesopotamia was already pretty well organised. The Romans were very organised to the point some of their works are still in use.
The truth of the matter is the public water supply was on its knees before it was privatised
They do that - like with the NHS they under-invest and say we need to privatise.
Underinvestment in water wasn't something that began under Thatcher as some 4D chess prelude to privatisation in 1989. It had been decades of underinvestment combined with large population growth and increased per capita demand for water.
Most foul water wasn't treated, Thames Water just dumped sludge from WWTPs into the North Sea, and leakage in E&W was 50% higher than today! We can argue whether the "fix" (privatisation) was sensible or not, but it's mad to say that the water system in 1989 wasn't ****ed.
https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/households/supply-and-standards/leakage/#leakage5
Most foul water wasn't treated, Thames Water just dumped sludge from WWTPs into the North Sea
You say that as if it is somehow connected to ownership! 40 years ago there wasn't the same level of concern for the environment as there is today. What's changed that is government policy not privatisation.
Water companies are not now treating wastewater better than 40 years ago because of some weird and unnecessary sense of benevolence, they do it, often extremely badly, because they have no other choice.
There is not a shred of evidence that nationalised water companies would not maintain the same level of wastewater management as the current privatised companies do. In fact all the evidence suggests that publicly owned water companies which don't treat maximising profits as their priority would do a better job.
If you don't mind me saying.
Fomalised water supply as we know it today only came into existence in Victorian times.
Like aquaducts and sewers didn't exist before 1900 AD? 🤷♂️
The development of water supplies and waster water systems is probably the single greatest technological development that has benefited the human race in the last 2000 (probably a lot more) years. It's only in the last 50 years that the management and development of this critical technology has been in the hands of private monopolist companies and the result has been underinvestment, pollution, unstable supplies, and increasing prices for consumers despite a massively declining service.
Even pre-neolithic people needed easy unlimited access to clean water. And the access to that water was organised on a free communal basis.
The three most basic needs for humans.....shelter, food, and water. Add sex and you have the chance of a successful species.
there wasn't the same level of concern for the environment as there is today. What's changed that is government policy not privatisation.
So you do agree there has been significant investment by private companies to keep up with the changes in environmental standards. I don't think government policy would have changed quite as quickly if the investment was coming from them.
Don't forget many of them are just borrowing money to survive!
That's how most companies operate.
All these references to ancient water systems as a utopia for water supply are a bit silly in todays context. They may have brought in water but they didn't treat the waste, and the water was really there for the rich, with a trickle down affect for everyone else if they were lucky.
As for renationalisation leading to significant investment, I really can't see that happening when there's no money / will to do so. Even if the Greens get in (they won't) reality will kick in.
So you do agree there has been significant investment by private companies to keep up with the changes in environmental standards
Significant and sufficient aren't the same words.
There is little doubt that the water companies have not fulfilled their statutory duties with regards to wastewater management.
If they had then Thames Water would not have been fined over one hundred million pounds last year for wastewater management breaches.
Fines which Thames Water customers, including me, probably paid.
I don't think government policy would have changed quite as quickly if the investment was coming from them.
Yes it would, policy came from the EU, for example the urban wastewater treatment directive. Yet we know that standards are widely flouted by privately owned companies.
Even if the Greens get in (they won't) reality will kick in.
The Greens could quite possibly be in government in four years time, depending on how much comprise the centrists who are now firmly in control of the Labour Party are willing to make. Or in the unlikely event that they loosen their grip.
Significant and sufficient aren't the same words.
I never said the investment was sufficient but I do still maintain that more investment went into the systems than would have happened if the water supply had remained in public ownership.
As for EU legislation, there's plenty of homegrown legislation we fail to fund fully as well. Making it law doesn't guarantee it will get done.
[quote data-userid="2926" data-postid="13640341"
It's only in the last 50 years that the management and development of this critical technology has been in the hands of private monopolist companies and the result has been underinvestment, pollution, unstable supplies, and increasing prices for consumers despite a massively declining service.
Water has only been privatised in England and Wales for part of that time. The underinvestment and pollution existed way before privatisation. Although investment has massively increased, supply reliability has improved, and pollution has reduced since privatisation, the system still is not fixed.
What is it about criticising privatisation that leads to weird denialism about the huge problems that existed around water before 1989? None of this stuff began in 1989 and the objectively the position has improved since 1989 - but not enough and not necessarily quicker than would have been achieved under state management.
I never said the investment was sufficient but I do still maintain that more investment went into the systems than would have happened if the water supply had remained in public ownership.
And I will say less investment went in. Easy to just make stuff up isn't it.
As for EU legislation, there's plenty of homegrown legislation we fail to fund fully as well. Making it law doesn't guarantee it will get done.
Well yes, as we've seen from the privatized water industry's continued failure to comply with the law.
What is it about criticising privatisation that leads to weird denialism about the huge problems that existed around water before 1989?
Before privatization, bills were far lower (in relative terms) and investment was capped. The Tory government decided privatization was an easier solution than the state funding the necessary investment. Today we see a huge chunk of our bills going to servicing debt and dividends, no competition, not a single new reservoir, and a toothless regulator. These are direct impacts of a natural monopoly being privately owned.
OK, maybe - but why does a bad "fix" after 1989 lead to weird denialism about the huge problems that existed around water before 1989?
I read that the amount of money given to water cos shareholders is similar to their total debt
OK, maybe - but why does a bad "fix" after 1989 lead to weird denialism about the huge problems that existed around water before 1989?
You'll need to redirect your question to someone who believes there were no problems before privatization.
And I will say less investment went in. Easy to just make stuff up isn't it.
So it would appear.
However I can back up my statement, can you?
Investment in the industry has roughly doubled since privatisation in 1989, rising drastically in the 1990s
Offwat https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/investment-in-the-water-industry/
Whilst, as I have said, I am all for nationalisation, remove the profit, dividends and bonuses and you still won’t get the things people want unless money is found that the current companies don’t have access too.
The water utilities in Scotland are publicly owned and the environmental performance there is not significantly different to England and Wales
172% inflation since 1989 and when they say investment has doubled they fail to state they've corrected for inflation as they do with other figures so presumably they haven't. That ofwat report is as clear as sewage and smells as bad. Self congratulatory misleading bollocks is what I made of that report. Especially when they add
"So, the nature and focus of investment has changed, not the level of investment."
I'm highly sceptical about any stats on bathing directives. I started with Welsh Water doing just that. I saw the pattern and frequency of monitoring changing to produce ever better figures rather than the improving figures resulting from capital works. The main influence was run-off from farmland. Having not noticed any significant reduction in intensive agriculture (on the contrary) or radical changes in techniques I can't see why results would have dramatically improved other than by modification to sampling points and timing of sampling. The early 80s results were an excellent represeantation of real bathing water quality, by the late 80s a little less so and now I'm sceptical.
deleted
It doesn't matter if investment has doubled. It's clearly not enough.
We have to deal with institutional rubbish like this on Ofwat's page.
Prior to privatisation the industry was competing for investment with everything else a government could spend money on; education, health, welfare. This meant that investment was constrained and so water quality was relatively poor, beaches had real issues with sewage and leakage was a significant issue.
This is horse-shit of the highest order and frankly just helping the case for privatisation along rather than being a fact.
Government's choose to under-invest to make a case for privatisation
There will absolutely never be a bigger investor than the the government. They just don't want you to believe that is the case. Why borrow money from the private sector in the first place when you can fund anything you want to? It's just dumb.
County gains an asset and maybe we could get some new reservoirs too?
It's all part of the Thatcher legacy.
Regulators are an impotent waste of time. If we had governments with the political will we could fix all these problems.
(Also at the same time water companies have extracted 82bn - so they might have put in 5-6bn a year but if it comes out the other end and put on our bills - it's inefficient. Our bills are proof.)
Financing dividends with debts is also more proof that they're not fit for purpose either.
I'm highly sceptical about any stats on bathing directives. I started with Welsh Water doing just that. I saw the pattern and frequency of monitoring changing to produce ever better figures rather than the improving figures resulting from capital works. The main influence was run-off from farmland. Having not noticed any significant reduction in intensive agriculture (on the contrary) or radical changes in techniques I can't see why results would have dramatically improved other than by modification to sampling points and timing of sampling. The early 80s results were an excellent represeantation of real bathing water quality, by the late 80s a little less so and now I'm sceptical.
Well we can discuss bathing water sampling until the cows come home and never reach a useful conclusion but…
The standards in the current bathing water regs were brought in by the revised BW directive. They were put into Welsh law in, I think, 2013 and introduced significantly tighter standards. This forced Dwr Cymru Welsh Water to invest a load of cash in the networks to reduce spills. The impact of the investment was visible in the results and the measured water quality at some bathing water beaches was significantly better as a consequence. In short things have moved on a load since the 80s.
In terms of sampling… research work done in Wales and other locations has shown that bathing water quality varies widely over a single day (up to 3 log order) and is influenced by multiple factors beyond simple pollution inputs. As such, it is arguable that taking spot samples, even to build up today’s 4 year rolling dataset, has its limitations. But right now, the sampling protocol prescribed by the current regs is more stringent than the previous monitoring regime.
And I will say less investment went in. Easy to just make stuff up isn't it.
So it would appear.
However I can back up my statement, can you?
Investment in the industry has roughly doubled since privatisation in 1989, rising drastically in the 1990s
Offwat https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/investment-in-the-water-industry/
Blimey, that's impressively disingenuous even by stw standards, if I may be so bold to suggest.
What was being discussed was your claim that more investment went into wastewater management because it was privatised than would have done had it remained publicly owned.
Kerley's point was that you can't prove that claim, he doesn't believe it and nor do I. And you still haven't proved it. As kerley says, it's easy to make up stuff.
OK, maybe - but why does a bad "fix" after 1989 lead to weird denialism about the huge problems that existed around water before 1989?
You'll need to redirect your question to someone who believes there were no problems before privatization.
Then your "answer" above is a non sequitur to the question. 🤷♂️
Prior to privatisation the industry was competing for investment with everything else a government could spend money on; education, health, welfare. This meant that investment was constrained and so water quality was relatively poor, beaches had real issues with sewage and leakage was a significant issue.
This is horse-shit of the highest order and frankly just helping the case for privatisation along rather than being a fact.
Government's choose to under-invest to make a case for privatisation
Underinvestment in water started *decades* before the water system in England & Wales was privatised. Much of the water mains around my way are still Victorian cast iron! It wasn't just 10 years of underinvestment under Thatcher (which certainly happened - see 2.5 below!) as a pretext for and prelude to privatisation. You think Jim Callaghan chose to underinvest in water to make the case for its privatisation? Maybe Macmillan? Attlee...?
The origins of much of the existing water infrastructure in the United Kingdom can be traced back to the mid-nineteenth century ... The most important change came about through the Water Act 1973, under which ten Regional Water Authorities (RWAs) were established ... the assets inherited by the RWAs—many originating in the nineteenth century—had suffered decades of neglect, with renewals and repairs hampered by the previously dispersed nature of ownership and by under-investment.
HISTORIC UNDER-INVESTMENT
2.5. The 1970s and 1980s were challenging economic times for the water industry. The Treasury exercised strict controls over public sector borrowing and spending, which resulted in cuts in the industry's capital expenditure. Between 1955/56 and 1973/74 capital spending by the water industry had tripled in real terms, but in 1979 the Government instructed the RWAs to reduce planned investment by 11.2 percent and to increase the proportion of capital expenditure financed out of current surplus. By the 1980s, investment had fallen to between a quarter and a half of what it had been in real terms ten years previously.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldsctech/191/19106.htm
Since the discussion on water industry ownership has now got completely bogged down on the topic of "investment" it is probably worth pointing out that it has nothing at all to do with the reason that the current government won't renationalise water.
The only difference between the Green Party's and the Labour Party's positions on the issue is that Sir Keir Starmer claims that water industry nationalisation would be 'too costly and time-consuming' and Zack Polanski claims that is nonsense.
Starmer has never made the claim nationalisation would lead to less investment, in fact has anyone? So why is it being discussed at such lengths?
Why not focus on the excuse the government is actually giving? Because the excuse is too ridiculous?
Then your "answer" above is a non sequitur to the question. 🤷♂️
I hadn't thought that my answer was difficult to understand, but there you go.
Renationalise or not… I’d vote for it but it’s a side issue as far as I can see.
Why? Because nationalising in itself will not bring around a step change in environmental protection. Significant increases in investment is also needed as well as a change in urban and suburban planning and a load of other stuff pretty complex stuff.
Right now we seem to be heading towards even more extreme concentrations of wealth in the already super wealthy. The rest of us will be left behind and we people will soon stop worrying about bathing water quality as they start to worry about more immediately pressing issues. We need to sort out growing inequality more than we need to renationalise the water industry.
We need to sort out growing inequality more than we need to renationalise the water industry.
If only we could figure out a way of how a government might perhaps multitask eh?
Something along the lines of dividing the government into different departments with different responsibilities and different Secretary of States.
Still, perhaps there's plenty of time to deal with just one issue at a time. It won't be for another four before Labour loses a general election.
If only we could figure out a way of how a government might perhaps multitask eh?
Do both, that’s cool. But inequality is the big issue. If you don’t sort that you can renationalise if you want… but it won’t help very much.
If you make renationalising one of your big manifesto pledges yet don’t deal with inequality and don’t sort out the myriad other issues that are holding back progress in environmental protection, it will only come back to haunt you when the newly renationalised water utility fails to make the required progress.
For many people it's a totemic issue, not a strategic one.
Pure opinion but the leadership of Zack Polanski, Rachel Millward and Mothin Ali are the most straightforward bunch of people I've seen communicate in ages.
A far cry from the authoritian, confused and inept mess of the Labour leaders.
I've absolutely no idea whether they will have much reach but it's definitely a positive bunch with much to say.
Labour feel like out of touch dinosaurs against this backdrop. Ghosts of Tory thinking.
Pleased Polanski has done the message of hope video too.
Polanski is certainly making a big splash. memebership growing and column inches way up.
Right now we seem to be heading towards even more extreme concentrations of wealth in the already super wealthy. The rest of us will be left behind and we people will soon stop worrying about bathing water quality as they start to worry about more immediately pressing issues. We need to sort out growing inequality more than we need to renationalise the water industry.
At last someone gets it. It seems that Polanski has been paying attention to what Gary Stevenson and Prof Richard Murphy have been saying about wealth inequality and its dangers to our society and he seems to understand that addressing inequality and getting government to govern for all the people instead of the 1% is key and without it you can't effectively address environmental issues. Having said that I think its entirely possible to address inequality and sort out the water industry at the same time.
Nationalising water and energy, is a double hit to control bills and meet environmental needs. Any politician still pretending a nations energy and water needs can be met by the market has zero environmental credibility at best, and in reality is working to damage the environment for the greed of the few.
