Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[JamesT]

A monopoly I can think of in this country are our water companies, which are a geographical monopoly, so you have no choice but to go with whoever the company is in your local area. If we could only nationalise one utility industry in this country, I'd be going for this one, we've seen evidence of how ineffective private water companies are through billions of litres lost in leaks that are not profitable to fix, and in all the untreated sewage being dumped in rivers and bathing waters.

What difference would you expect from nationalisation over the current system where water company spending is constrained by the regulator and government isn't concerned by debt as it's not on their books? Apparently Ofwat have prioritised low bills over investment over the last decade or so. The companies are encouraged to invest by the structure of their monopolies as more investment means a greater ability to make profits.
I can't find the source I saw before, but UK water leakage rates were about average. I suspect based on stories such as https://www.waternewseurope.com/tourists-in-europe-are-swimming-in-raw-sewage-despite-blue-flags/ that our sewage discharges are probably fairly average too, we just don't see the reporting of the issues in other countries.

 

[brad465]

I'm surprised by this statement. Business users even in the West Highlands have a choice of at least 2 water suppliers, although obviously the water all comes from the same place in the same way as electricity and telephone lines are the same whichever supplier you use.
I'm not sure how you would provide different water distribution systems

Sounds like Scotland is different to England and Wales on this matter.

What difference would you expect from nationalisation over the current system where water company spending is constrained by the regulator and government isn't concerned by debt as it's not on their books? Apparently Ofwat have prioritised low bills over investment over the last decade or so. The companies are encouraged to invest by the structure of their monopolies as more investment means a greater ability to make profits.
I can't find the source I saw before, but UK water leakage rates were about average. I suspect based on stories such as https://www.waternewseurope.com/tourists-in-europe-are-swimming-in-raw-sewage-despite-blue-flags/ that our sewage discharges are probably fairly average too, we just don't see the reporting of the issues in other countries.

There are not many countries in the world where water is privatised, and even in other countries with this it's not nationwide. If it was such a great idea I'd expect it to be more widespread. There are definitely plenty of flaws in our regulator for sure.

Whatever our sewage and leakage rates are compared to other countries, they are still too high for what a developed country should be seeing. Instead of just saying it's similar elsewhere, let's not worry about it, why don't we say "let's do even better and even try and lead the way"? Also, that source is 2017, which I think is too old for this subject; a source from 2020 at the earliest maybe more credible.

 

[JamesT]

Sounds like Scotland is different to England and Wales on this matter.

I wonder if those alternative suppliers are private water sources. Those exist in England and Wales too. Scottish Water have a monopoly in the same way as down South.

There are not many countries in the world where water is privatised, and even in other countries with this it's not nationwide. If it was such a great idea I'd expect it to be more widespread. There are definitely plenty of flaws in our regulator for sure.

Whatever our sewage and leakage rates are compared to other countries, they are still too high for what a developed country should be seeing. Instead of just saying it's similar elsewhere, let's not worry about it, why don't we say "let's do even better and even try and lead the way"? Also, that source is 2017, which I think is too old for this subject; a source from 2020 at the earliest maybe more credible.

It depends on your definition of privatisation. Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization it seems pretty widespread, though mostly of a local concession model. The main reason I presented the comparison is that the proposition is that our privatised system somehow results in a much poorer outcome than everywhere else, which doesn’t appear to be the case.

If sewerage and leakage are now the priority, get Ofwat to allow bills to rise to provide the investment. Investment doubled after privatisation, looking at the constraints the Treasury put on the railways, would water manage any better?

 

[WatcherZero]

Its official, Sunak had delayed the decision on Raab until tommorow despite the briefings this morning that it would be taken today.

My interpretation is its bad but Sunak wants Raab to honour his pledge to jump rather than be pushed but he had failed to do so and Sunak has now given him until tomorrow to do the honourable thing before hes fired.

 

[Gloster]

Its official, Sunak had delayed the decision on Raab until tommorow despite the briefings this morning that it would be taken today.

My interpretation is its bad but Sunak wants Raab to honour his pledge to jump rather than be pushed but he had failed to do so and Sunak has now given him until tomorrow to do the honourable thing before hes fired.

Yes, but first they have to explain to Raab what the phrase ‘the honourable thing’ means and that will be no easy job. Either that or he is being given time to go home and collect his knuckledusters.

More seriously, when we had politicians with the merest trace of honour and common sense, they would have long ago made a dignified departure, even if they were guilty as hell: if nothing else that gave them a chance of returning at a later date. Nowadays they will just hang on in the hope that the PM is just as amoral as they are or can be persuaded (bribed/blackmailed/threatened) to keep them on.

 

[takno]

I wonder if those alternative suppliers are private water sources. Those exist in England and Wales too. Scottish Water have a monopoly in the same way as down South.


It depends on your definition of privatisation. Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization it seems pretty widespread, though mostly of a local concession model. The main reason I presented the comparison is that the proposition is that our privatised system somehow results in a much poorer outcome than everywhere else, which doesn’t appear to be the case.

If sewerage and leakage are now the priority, get Ofwat to allow bills to rise to provide the investment. Investment doubled after privatisation, looking at the constraints the Treasury put on the railways, would water manage any better?

As far as I can see the alternative suppliers in Scotland are a bit of a legal fiction designed to meet competition requirements. As you note the water overwhelmingly actually comes from the nationalised supplier.

A more interesting question is whether the private sector shareholders being allowed to take a pretty offensive premium in spite of being unwilling to actually invest any upfront capital at all, compared the Scottish model of, well, not doing that, is resulting in lower bills and better overall outcomes. My bill up here is a fraction of what it was down South, nobody is threatening to waste my time and energy with a meter to read and worry about, and to the best of my knowledge we aren't dumping sewage left right and centre.

 

[JamesT]

As far as I can see the alternative suppliers in Scotland are a bit of a legal fiction designed to meet competition requirements. As you note the water overwhelmingly actually comes from the nationalised supplier.

A more interesting question is whether the private sector shareholders being allowed to take a pretty offensive premium in spite of being unwilling to actually invest any upfront capital at all, compared the Scottish model of, well, not doing that, is resulting in lower bills and better overall outcomes. My bill up here is a fraction of what it was down South, nobody is threatening to waste my time and energy with a meter to read and worry about, and to the best of my knowledge we aren't dumping sewage left right and centre.

Scotland has issues with sewage too https://theferret.scot/claim-sewage-overflows-not-issue-scotland-false/
The difference is that Scottish Water don’t monitor enough so it’s not as visible.

 

[takno]

Scotland has issues with sewage too https://theferret.scot/claim-sewage-overflows-not-issue-scotland-false/
The difference is that Scottish Water don’t monitor enough so it’s not as visible.

So the water I'm getting is cleaner, the bills are lower, and because the people involved aren't shifty capitalist money-grabbers, nobody is going about obsessively measuring what they do and getting angry about stuff. Seems like win-win to me

 

[Falcon1200]

Those exist in England and Wales too. Scottish Water have a monopoly in the same way as down South.

No choice of water supplier where I live in Scotland, in fact the billing is bundled up and charged along with the Council Tax.

 

[nw1]

As far as I can see the alternative suppliers in Scotland are a bit of a legal fiction designed to meet competition requirements. As you note the water overwhelmingly actually comes from the nationalised supplier.

A more interesting question is whether the private sector shareholders being allowed to take a pretty offensive premium in spite of being unwilling to actually invest any upfront capital at all, compared the Scottish model of, well, not doing that, is resulting in lower bills and better overall outcomes. My bill up here is a fraction of what it was down South, nobody is threatening to waste my time and energy with a meter to read and worry about, and to the best of my knowledge we aren't dumping sewage left right and centre.

What I find completely unacceptable is the way the Southern Water CEO took a half-million pound bonus (on top of a half-million pound salary) and the company has made large profits, when they have had several incidences of pollution and recently there have been multiple instances of multi-day water outages (I have been personally affected twice, in December and again in February) causing great hardship.

This to me is the unacceptable face of capitalism. There are certainly many places for capitalism, where there is genuine choice for the consumer or where entrepreneurs have innovative and interesting products and services that they can make money from. Monopolistic behemoths such as Southern Water, that deliver a bad service because their customers have no choice, are neither.

And its CEO certainly doesn't deserve a bonus of that size. I don't want my water bill being used to line the pockets of this man - I want it to be used to fix the infrastructure they appear to have been woefully neglecting.

I'm not saying that a nationalised company could not also neglect its infrastructure, or that private companies should be excluded from operating water systems as long as they put service before profit and there is a public-service ethos, such as a private company being contracted out by the council for example. I'm just saying that the whole ethic of the England and Wales water industry is completely wrong. It should be seen as a public service, and to my mind it isn't.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Apr 2023 ==

If sewerage and leakage are now the priority, get Ofwat to allow bills to rise to provide the investment. Investment doubled after privatisation, looking at the constraints the Treasury put on the railways, would water manage any better?

Why allow bills to rise? Why not spend some of their large profits on it instead? (see above).

It always seemingly has to be the customer who has to be exploited in these situations. Southern Water are making large profits (see above) - why can these not be ploughed into investment? Time we started thinking in a different way which can produce something other than a choice between poor service, expensive service or poor and expensive service.

 

[yorksrob]

I fail to see what justification there ever was for water privatisation in the first place, other than half-baked Tory ideology.

 

[jfollows]

I fail to see what justification there ever was for water privatisation in the first place, other than half-baked Tory ideology.

Just about everything the government has done since 2015 has been justified on the basis of half-baked Tory ideology!

 

[yorksrob]

Just about everything the government has done since 2015 has been justified on the basis of half-baked Tory ideology!

I'm tempted to say 1979, but they may have had a point with the telephones

 

[nw1]

I fail to see what justification there ever was for water privatisation in the first place, other than half-baked Tory ideology.

Possibly ideology, possibly to make money for the Tory party's mates, I suspect.

 

[yorksrob]

Possibly ideology, possibly to make money for the Tory party's mates, I suspect.

Yes, mustn't forget the City boys.

 

[takno]

I'm tempted to say 1979, but they may have had a point with the telephones

The phones are always touted as the one smart thing to privatise, but I'm not convinced. Hull have generally had a rather better system than the national average by holding out longer in public ownership, openreach have been a dead-hand messily-regulated private monopoly anyway for 30 years, and the international comparisons don't support the claim generally.

If we hadn't insisted on starving it of investment in the public sector then things might be different. When the Tories claim that the government doesn't run industries well, they are often reflecting more on their own inability to run industries than anything inherent in government

 

[yorksrob]

. When the Tories claim that the government doesn't run industries well, they are often reflecting more on their own inability to run industries than anything inherent in government

This is certainly true. They are always very keen to deflect their own policy failures.

 

[jfollows]

Today or tomorrow could mean Rishi Sunak is appointing a new Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, if there's actually a need for the latter. It looks as if the investigation into Dominic Raab will come to an end, possibly be sent to Rishi Sunak today and published soon after. Three outcomes are sacking, resignation or nothing.

The odds appear to be in favour of one of the first two, it would appear. However the opinions don't seem conclusive, just that the report will not be good for Dominic Raab and that he'll probably have to go. If he doesn't, there are some civil servants who will probably resign and more of them who will ask to be reassigned away from Dominic Raab.

It's interesting that in the wake of the chaos with Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and others that this now appears to be a rather humdrum thing, just another possible government minister being sacked or resigning, nothing new here ....

EDIT Report supposedly getting to Rishi Sunak at 1130 per https://twitter.com/breeallegretti:

Raab has resigned.

 

[birchesgreen]

Raab is no great loss, he is so dense light bends around him.

 

[DustyBin]

Raab is no great loss, he is so dense light bends around him.

True!

 

[Peterthegreat]

Its official, Sunak had delayed the decision on Raab until tommorow despite the briefings this morning that it would be taken today.

My interpretation is its bad but Sunak wants Raab to honour his pledge to jump rather than be pushed but he had failed to do so and Sunak has now given him until tomorrow to do the honourable thing before hes fired.

Spot on! Now can you tell me the weekend Lotto numbers.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Raab has resigned.

His resignation letter is stunning. Apparently the investigation into his bullying sets a dangerous precedent in that the threshold for what is bullying has now been set too low

 

[jfollows]

His resignation letter is stunning. Apparently the investigation into his bullying sets a dangerous precedent in that the threshold for what is bullying has now been set too low

Yes, it’s bad, no apology, no support for Sunak, it’s all not really his fault. Good riddance! He clearly doesn’t want a job in government again, because he’s not going to get offered one. And hopefully he’ll lose his seat at the next election.

 

[nw1]

So will he stand in Esher next time or won't he, I wonder?

 

[High Dyke]

Yes, it’s bad, no apology, no support for Sunak, it’s all not really his fault. Good riddance! He clearly doesn’t want a job in government again, because he’s not going to get offered one. And hopefully he’ll lose his seat at the next election.

Don't hold yer breath! I wouldn't trust these shysters to give him another job. Losing his seat would be the best option, or even deselect him as a candidate.

 

[Typhoon]

His resignation letter is stunning. Apparently the investigation into his bullying sets a dangerous precedent in that the threshold for what is bullying has now been set too low

What I like is his statement that "all but two claims levelled against" him had been dismissed.
There were eight claims and two upheld. So would that work in a criminal court 'I was accused of eight burglaries and only two were proved so I should be let go'? Guilty of one is enough to be sentenced. I'm surprised he hadn't realised that. He'll get a knighthood sometime down the track meanwhile he can join the likes of Truss, Kwarteng, Patel, Hancock, Williamson, Grayling in the Incompetents wing of the party. In the meantime, I gather that there are South Korean companies looking for influential MPs to join their Advisory Board, and he could always see if there is any work at GB News.

 

[Gloster]

It has not been handled well by Sunak, although admittedly it is not a situation that he could ever win. However, if the report is as bad and the bullying as obvious as has been reported, his best move would have been to act without delay, i.e. yesterday afternoon or early evening (in time for the papers), by calling Raab in and either sacking him or demanding his immediate resignation. Instead, he has given the impression that he was looking for a compromise and putting party support above the country‘s good. (And letting people write and release their own resignation letters is fraught with risks.)

However, it will all be largely forgotten soon, merely adding another strand to the web of bad impressions that the government is creating. It is just another episode in the saga of an incompetent and accident-prone government.

 

[jfollows]

I'm watching Sky News at the moment, and they're pretty scathing on the tenor and content of the resignation letter. The opportunist Lib Dems are calling for him to resign as an MP, as always, but he won't because they'd win the seat in a by-election, but the comments otherwise are that he pretty much "slammed the door on" a future political career, so whether or not he stands at the next election might be a better question.

 

[nw1]

Don't hold yer breath! I wouldn't trust these shysters to give him another job. Losing his seat would be the best option, or even deselect him as a candidate.

I'd prefer he stands and loses than gets deselected. More likely to lose the seat than some new rent-a-Tory with a clean record.

 

[jfollows]

I'd prefer he stands and loses than gets deselected. More likely to lose the seat than some new rent-a-Tory with a clean record.

I agree.
Sky has pretty well rubbished his letter and suggests that he may well not stand at the next election.