[Sussex] Southern Water Price Increase

[clapham_gull]

Privatisation was designed to introduce competition and drive down prices. All we have in the water sector is a bunch of monopolies basically deciding how much money they want to print this year.

Time's up.

Thatcher restricted the Regional Water Authorities in their ability to borrow money, in an already under-invested area of the state.

They were then faced with EU regulation regarding the quality of water.

Water was sold off (as well as the debt) to make it someone else's issue. Same with the railways.

Never anything to do with competition (whatever they said), everything to do with responsibility.

 

[LamieRobertson]

I don't get your logic ?
I'm don't know the details at all however i would have thought it is easier to move electricity (or the parts needed to generate electricity) than it is to move Water

(I'm not trying to belittle you or anything in this response) Anything that moves cost money.. How do we move water from once place to another without cost?

There is a necessity to build/improve the infrastructure to move/store the electricity generated to areas where people live …this costs

ps noted your politeness

 

[happypig]

I don't get your logic ?
I'm don't know the details at all however i would have thought it is easier to move electricity (or the parts needed to generate electricity) than it is to move Water

(I'm not trying to belittle you or anything in this response) Anything that moves cost money.. How do we move water from once place to another without cost?

We* already move water from Kielder in Northumberland to London (via Newark) :

*I say "we" but it's nothing to do with me.

 

[beorhthelm]

If not - then what was privatisation for??

to get assets expensive to run off the government books.

lower government debt and the Treasury doesn't have to decide between hospitals or new water pipes and sewage.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If not - then what was privatisation for??

Buying votes by giving shares to mugs with short term greed their main driver?

 

[Bodian]

We* already move water from Kielder in Northumberland to London (via Newark) :

*I say "we" but it's nothing to do with me.

Looking at that map, it does actually highlight one of the major problems for Southern Water. There is no ready supply of reservoir based water - it's mainly extracted from aquifers I think?

 

[Bodian]

Buying votes by giving shares to mugs with short term greed their main driver?

Surely not!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

to get assets expensive to run off the government books.

If they are intrinsically expensive to run how come BT, British gas, British Aerospace etc., went on to make massive profits for their shareholders?

Privatization was an electoral bribe.

The last big privatization was the rail 'service'. A total catastrophe.
And Major still lost the election.
As the Private Eye cartoon said at the time: "We even cocked up the bribe"

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I believe a lot of the issues these water companies have are historic - decades of poor management and lack of investment.

The reality is that there needs to be massive investment over the next decade in order to reduce pollution to a 'satisfactory' level.

The big question is - where is the money going to come from? The answer is either the taxpayer, or the customer. Considering that the country is skint, I don't think now is a good time to renationalise. There is no guarantee that the performance would improve.

I do agree with the increase in water bills, as LONG as there is a demonstrated improvement in performance through investment over the next few years.

It's worth noting that Southern Water hasn't paid any dividends since 2017, and they have invested in a lot of large scale waste water infrastructure projects in recent years.

I also think it's a bit of an uphill battle for water companies - as they are battling against an ever increasing population, with increasingly old outdated sewer systems not fit for purpose.

I think it's also worth noting that although they are failing with waste water processing, the UKs drinking water is still amongst the safest in the world.

My view is that we should accept higher bills in exchange for greater investment - but with higher bills, we should be guaranteed in an improvement in environmental performance, as customers, over the next few years.

Fair to conclude that we are where we are. Given that, yes, there's really no choice, the customer, muggins over here, will have to pick up the bill.

However, part of the deal surely has to be ...... the millions being paid in dividends and massive wages and dividends for directors has to stop. If the water companies are getting more money, the power and oversight of OFWAT has to go up commensurately

And there has to be some sort of reckoning with what has happened. Some of the practices from Thames Water, can't be that far off criminal. There must be accountability for the ministers, directors and regulators responsible. Some sort of report to lay bare the scale of what has been taken from us

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of people arrive here illegally needing all the same. What a mess we’re in.

Not everything is the fault of immigrants you know

 

[portlock seagull]

Not everything is the fault of immigrants you know

I didn’t say it was. You made a poor assumption there.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Thatcher restricted the Regional Water Authorities in their ability to borrow money, in an already under-invested area of the state.

They were then faced with EU regulation regarding the quality of water.

Water was sold off (as well as the debt) to make it someone else's issue. Same with the railways.

Never anything to do with competition (whatever they said), everything to do with responsibility.

One thing I don't think is right. I believe the Government wrote off the water company debt and also gave them significant funding when the were privatised.

Because one of the ironic things is that as of today, the water companies are in approx £65B of debt, the same amount they have paid out on dividends since privatisation

 

[1066familyman]

A 40% price increase will take our bill to pretty much £200 a month, with no choice to switch provider in a so called 'free market'.

Incredible!

 

[clapham_gull]

One thing I don't think is right. I believe the Government wrote off the water company debt and also gave them significant funding when the were privatised.

Because on of the ironic things is that as of today, the water companies are in approx £65B of debt, the same amount they have paid out on dividends since privatisation

Yes didn't mean "sold off debt" although I typed it.



I think they just took on the debt probably to make the whole thing more attractive ?

There is a pattern regarding 80s privatisations isn't there ?

 

[WATFORD zero]

Yes didn't mean "sold off debt" although I typed it.



I think they just took on the debt probably to make the whole thing more attractive ?

There is a pattern regarding 80s privatisations isn't there ?

Selling off the countries assets to investors whilst the public took on the debt was quite common at the time IIRC

 

[beorhthelm]

If they are intrinsically expensive to run how come BT, British gas, British Aerospace etc., went on to make massive profits for their shareholders?

Privatization was an electoral bribe.

The last big privatization was the rail 'service'. A total catastrophe.
And Major still lost the election.
As the Private Eye cartoon said at the time: "We even cocked up the bribe"

interesting question. an answer might be they are in genuine markets, competition and innovation, ability to upgrade and grow, have allowed them to prosper. other utilities are under tight regulation, no real market, barely any way to change. just deliver the service, while keeping up with 100 years of decaying infrastructure.

it's too simple to mix up the why and the how. many countries privatise their utilities, keeping the companies controled, directors on the board, retaining 50% ownership, golden shares etc. UK chose to go a different route ideologically, with mixed results.

 

[LamieRobertson]

anyone notice the reporting give the projected 5 year increase, as if it's going to happen immediately?

Good point……I had posted about that on the other thread when this price increase was muted last year but forgot.

i can see now that perhaps the OP has a point about media frenzy and that should be acknowledged……not sure it changes the underlying points being made…..lack of investment in previous years ….poor building of new resevoirs etc

 

[Cordwainer]

Your desperation this morning to come out and bat for Southern Water in the face of the indefensible is admirable, have they promised you a discount on your bills if you do it?

Comical, poor and rather obvious trollery.
Unfortunately in my current career Ive had to work with SWS on hundreds of occasions down the years and whilst of course you cannot tar an entire organisation with the same brush, having witnessed first hand some of their on the ground practices, particularly related to their WTW, I’d wager that leak reduction and protection of the aquatic environment is not top of their list.

 

[peterward]

If you are still on water rates and haven't got a meter (pre 90s houses) you should strongly consider it to save cash and can always go back to rates if you choose according Martin Lewis.

47% hike is an utter piss take.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/cut-water-bills/

 

[Cordwainer]

If you are still on water rates and haven't got a meter (pre 90s houses) you should strongly consider it to save cash and can always go back to rates if you choose according Martin Lewis.

47% hike is an utter piss take.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/cut-water-bills/

If only they did take the piss..and of course treat it properly.