The true cost of water

Martin54Martin54 Suspended
edited August 2024 in Purgatory
Does Ofwat know what it's talking about in repressing price rises?

How does extracting profit at record levels help? I mean. seriously, never mind my rabid left wingery, what is the business model? Why can't we just build the best water infrastructure in the world on Keynesian principles? 10 years of capital investment from a gilts issue over a hundred years or something similarly absurdly naive?

Is nationalization the answer? And what would Ofwat do then?

Comments

  • There's an argument that government ownership of water resources leads to starvation of investment per the situation in Ireland. The argument being that when governments have many financial pressures, it is fairly easy to kick the can on the necessary ongoing long-term investment in water because the politicians making the decisions are not going to be around in 25-50 years to see the results.

    Of course capitalism hasn't a great record in the British water system either.
  • HarryCHHarryCH Shipmate
    Okay, I'll bite: who or what is Ofwat?
  • It's the British water regulator
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    KoF wrote: »
    There's an argument that government ownership of water resources leads to starvation of investment per the situation in Ireland. The argument being that when governments have many financial pressures, it is fairly easy to kick the can on the necessary ongoing long-term investment in water because the politicians making the decisions are not going to be around in 25-50 years to see the results.

    Of course capitalism hasn't a great record in the British water system either.

    I'm afraid you've nailed it @KoF. Even with a five year political cycle, it's not enough to build a public luxury water infrastructure.
  • This is why government has to be the point rather than power. I know this is discounted now but either we get over this or everything will continue to be shit filled.
  • KoF wrote: »
    There's an argument that government ownership of water resources leads to starvation of investment per the situation in Ireland. The argument being that when governments have many financial pressures, it is fairly easy to kick the can on the necessary ongoing long-term investment in water because the politicians making the decisions are not going to be around in 25-50 years to see the results.

    Of course capitalism hasn't a great record in the British water system either.

    Well, quite. How many companies these days are routinely making investments that expect to pay off in 50 years?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    When I lived in Wolverhampton I was a customer of Severn Trent and I was billed every month. When I moved to Sheffield in 2016 I signed up to Yorkshire water and asked for a water meter. I now pay 4 times a year and it's about 66% cheaper. Is that all down the the meter or is the company more efficient?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    KoF wrote: »
    It's the British water regulator

    Thank you - clicking on the word in the OP gets nowhere.
  • Here is the same link but fixed: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyx0jxrq7y4o
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited August 2024
    This is why government has to be the point rather than power. I know this is discounted now but either we get over this or everything will continue to be shit filled.

    Without legislation, there's no chance. We under use legislation, to say the least, to protect the commons, the public luxury we can't not afford. As in house building (including grey water separation), insulation, regardless of sector, power. Labour has put a toe in the water, we'll see.
  • Exactly - and you're quite right re. housing. The passivhaus requirement should have been re-enacted and brought in before expanding housebuilding. We need houses which protect their occupants from the effects of climate chaos, not profit-boxes. Likewise, we need reliable water services, not reliable dividend pumps for shareholders.
  • I heard the head of Ofwat speaking on the radio yesterday. He said that any fines would be paid by shareholders rather than through price rises (really?). He was then asked what would happen if the companies didn't pay up, but was "woolly" in his answer.

    One of the next tranche of companies facing fines will be Welsh Water; I don't know what will happen here as it's a not-for-profit company without shareholders.

    As a general rule, how does fining failing companies or organisations (eg hospitals, train companies) help them deliver a better service? It either means price hikes or reduced investment at a time when it's most needed.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    Speaking as someone who works in a so called passive building - that is variously way too hot or too cold - they need to make sure a passive system is properly designed for the changing climate, rather than just assuming it never gets really hot in the UK.
  • KoF wrote: »
    There's an argument that government ownership of water resources leads to starvation of investment per the situation in Ireland. The argument being that when governments have many financial pressures, it is fairly easy to kick the can on the necessary ongoing long-term investment in water because the politicians making the decisions are not going to be around in 25-50 years to see the results.

    Right, and you could make an argument that you'd see exactly what you see in other areas - say nuclear power.

    Though in this case the capital costs are much smaller, the environmental impacts somewhat positive, and the government still manages to build some infrastructure (albeit normally PFIed).

  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    It would seem the only way to get the capital investment is nationalize the banks...
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    It would seem the only way to get the capital investment is nationalize the banks...

    Well we have pulled them out of trouble before.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    It would seem the only way to get the capital investment is nationalize the banks...

    I have no idea why you think that might help.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Martin54 wrote: »
    It would seem the only way to get the capital investment is nationalize the banks...

    I have no idea why you think that might help.

    To get the necessary capital?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    It would seem the only way to get the capital investment is nationalize the banks...

    I have no idea why you think that might help.

    To get the necessary capital?

    The government doesn't need to acquire a retail bank in order to borrow money to invest in infrastructure. The government creates public debt. It doesn't need a retail bank in order to do that. The government can invest in public infrastructure without the intervention of the banks.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited August 2024
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    It would seem the only way to get the capital investment is nationalize the banks...

    I have no idea why you think that might help.

    To get the necessary capital?

    The government doesn't need to acquire a retail bank in order to borrow money to invest in infrastructure. The government creates public debt. It doesn't need a retail bank in order to do that. The government can invest in public infrastructure without the intervention of the banks.

    Good to know. So why doesn't it? What would nail down a good Keynesian splurge (paid for over 50 years) that no Tory government could stop in 9 years (at least hopefully), like HS2 was stopped, beyond Birmingham where it's most needed?

    I'd have thought that owning retail banking would help guarantee long finance? Feel it in me water. Good in many other ways too of course.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    I'd have thought that owning retail banking would help guarantee long finance? Feel it in me water.

    It wouldn't, your water is wrong, the government can borrow at lower rates than a retail bank, and retail banking doesn't make a particularly large amount of money unless its soaking its customers.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited August 2024
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I'd have thought that owning retail banking would help guarantee long finance? Feel it in me water.

    It wouldn't, your water is wrong, the government can borrow at lower rates than a retail bank, and retail banking doesn't make a particularly large amount of money unless its soaking its customers.

    So why won't it? Why can't we have 50 year water bonds or the like? And dumb question, where would it borrow cheaper from? Pension funds? Don't retail (as opposed to, what, commercial banks?) buy bonds?
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Several big UK water companies are being fined and money coming off people’s yearly bill. Don’t get excited it is thought to be about £10. Meanwhile they are putting prices up and saying that the rise is needed to cover the cost of repairs etc demanded by the same report.
    Well they weren’t after all supposed to have sorted out the problems now, were they?☹️
  • I listened to a very unconvincing interview with the head of Ofwat this morning. If you'd like to hear it, go to BBC Sounds, go to the Radio 4 schedule and find the "Today" programme. It started at about 7.10am which would be 1h10m into the programme.

    I'd say that the perceived lack of investment is due to the water companies being privatised and needing to pay dividends to shareholders; however Welsh Water, which is essentially a public utility, is one of the worst offenders!
  • I'd say that the perceived lack of investment is due to the water companies being privatised and needing to pay dividends to shareholders; however Welsh Water, which is essentially a public utility, is one of the worst offenders!

    That's true, but there are probably multiple causes that are in large part caused by poor regulation and - in Welsh Water's case - additional costs of supply and delivery given geography.

    They had a spell of around 10+ years in private hands, and when made into a non-profit assumed a certain amount of debt from that period. On the plus side, of all the water companies it has one of the strongest credit ratings at a time when Thames/Southern etc look in danger of going under.
  • I listened to a very unconvincing interview with the head of Ofwat this morning. If you'd like to hear it, go to BBC Sounds, go to the Radio 4 schedule and find the "Today" programme. It started at about 7.10am which would be 1h10m into the programme.

    I'd say that the perceived lack of investment is due to the water companies being privatised and needing to pay dividends to shareholders; however Welsh Water, which is essentially a public utility, is one of the worst offenders!

    This has been obvious since Thatcher. There was a very good BBC 24 report comparing the two public corporations of Welsh and Scottish Water. The former's failure is that of the (devolved) Welsh Labour dominated government since 1922...

    We're not paying enough for water.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I listened to a very unconvincing interview with the head of Ofwat this morning. If you'd like to hear it, go to BBC Sounds, go to the Radio 4 schedule and find the "Today" programme. It started at about 7.10am which would be 1h10m into the programme.

    I'd say that the perceived lack of investment is due to the water companies being privatised and needing to pay dividends to shareholders; however Welsh Water, which is essentially a public utility, is one of the worst offenders!

    This has been obvious since Thatcher. There was a very good BBC 24 report comparing the two public corporations of Welsh and Scottish Water. The former's failure is that of the (devolved) Welsh Labour dominated government since 1922...

    We're not paying enough for water.

    As usual that is not how it was sold to us. We would be paying less and the companies would sort out the water system, new pipes fewer leeks and many more unicorns. Welsh water took over a bad situation as did Transport for Wales. They are no worse than any other provider really.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I listened to a very unconvincing interview with the head of Ofwat this morning. If you'd like to hear it, go to BBC Sounds, go to the Radio 4 schedule and find the "Today" programme. It started at about 7.10am which would be 1h10m into the programme.

    I'd say that the perceived lack of investment is due to the water companies being privatised and needing to pay dividends to shareholders; however Welsh Water, which is essentially a public utility, is one of the worst offenders!

    This has been obvious since Thatcher. There was a very good BBC 24 report comparing the two public corporations of Welsh and Scottish Water. The former's failure is that of the (devolved) Welsh Labour dominated government since 1922...

    We're not paying enough for water.

    As usual that is not how it was sold to us. We would be paying less and the companies would sort out the water system, new pipes fewer leeks and many more unicorns. Welsh water took over a bad situation as did Transport for Wales. They are no worse than any other provider really.

    They took it over 25 years ago.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I listened to a very unconvincing interview with the head of Ofwat this morning. If you'd like to hear it, go to BBC Sounds, go to the Radio 4 schedule and find the "Today" programme. It started at about 7.10am which would be 1h10m into the programme.

    I'd say that the perceived lack of investment is due to the water companies being privatised and needing to pay dividends to shareholders; however Welsh Water, which is essentially a public utility, is one of the worst offenders!

    This has been obvious since Thatcher. There was a very good BBC 24 report comparing the two public corporations of Welsh and Scottish Water. The former's failure is that of the (devolved) Welsh Labour dominated government since 1922...

    We're not paying enough for water.

    As usual that is not how it was sold to us. We would be paying less and the companies would sort out the water system, new pipes fewer leeks and many more unicorns. Welsh water took over a bad situation as did Transport for Wales. They are no worse than any other provider really.

    They took it over 25 years ago.

    And you think there is capacity in Wales for higher water bills?
  • Hugal wrote: »
    We would be paying less and the companies would sort out the water system, new pipes fewer leeks and many more unicorns. Welsh water took over a bad situation as did Transport for Wales.
    We need as many leeks as we can get in Wales!

  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    We would be paying less and the companies would sort out the water system, new pipes fewer leeks and many more unicorns. Welsh water took over a bad situation as did Transport for Wales.
    We need as many leeks as we can get in Wales!

    OK leaks.
Sign In or Register to comment.