As long as the shareholders don't suffer.

[Ian H]

Sure, I've already said several times that the lack of investment in favour of profits for investors is scandalous (and borderline criminal you would think). My posts have just been trying to explain why we are getting discharge from overflows despite being in a drought with very low river levels i.e. the capacity of a combined sewer isn't related to how much water there is in the river (unless the outfall becomes choked by high river levels).

That's capitalism for you.

 

[briantrumpet]

That's Capitalism For You.

FTFY. Easy mistake to make.

 

[Ian H]

FTFY. Easy mistake to make.

That's a typically capital joke.

 

[briantrumpet]

That's a typically capital joke.

I've been saving it up.

 

[Psamathe]

My first reaction to Mayors and other local leaders could be given powers to oversee water firms - not impressed

Mayors and other local leaders could be given powers to oversee water firms​

Move would mean some input on companies’ spending and holding bosses to account over bills and sewage discharges

Mayors and other local politicians could be given powers to oversee water companies under plans being considered by the UK government to bring utilities under greater public control.

Local leaders would have the power to direct some parts of water companies’ spending and hold bosses to account over bills and sewage discharges as part of the proposals.

It comes as Andy Burnham faces growing pressure to improve the oversight of the water industry ...

My worry is that it politicises water supply. Mayors mostly stand along party lines with party aligned policy. But water is a very different service.

Regulating water is not difficult. So Mayors in Conservative areas will be fully supportive of high shareholder dividends as that makes the company attractive to investors, etc. Labour will be focusing of lower bills and if open sewers (ex rivers) are the means to achieve that then low bills is important.

Water companies cover far larger ranges that Mayors so the water company will likely have to cope with different oversight in different parts of it's supply area and eg in some area high dividends are sought in others different priorities.

Just like Police and Crime Commissioners, politicised so just a flawed idea as political oversight just daft.

And everything going to "Mayors" just because that's what Burnham understands. A Mayor is one person covering a wide area. There are democratic structures better able to manage and address local issues, daft to just devolve everything to mayors.

 

[farfromtheland]

I hope the 'Mayor' thing is to some extent a work around.

Regional devolution is a fine aim.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Agreed. Just give Ofwat the teeth it needs to regulate properly and fairly for all.

 

[farfromtheland]

Agreed. Just give Ofwat the teeth it needs to regulate properly and fairly for all.

Hmm. I'd have to chew that inference over.

 

[AuroraSaab]

And everything going to "Mayors" just because that's what Burnham understands. A Mayor is one person covering a wide area. There are democratic structures better able to manage and address local issues, daft to just devolve everything to mayors.

When you look at the voter turn out in mayoral elections it's very low. Even Burnham didn't really have much of a mandate re % of the electorate who voted for him. I'm very wary of giving mayors more power.

 

[farfromtheland]

When you look at the voter turn out in mayoral elections it's very low. Even Burnham didn't really have much of a mandate re % of the electorate who voted for him. I'm very wary of giving mayors more power.

The Act of Parliament that forced local councils to opt for either

a) a cabinet system
or
b) a mayoral head

was a deep attack on potential for locally accountable grass-roots democracy.

Burnham has my respect for championing the Hiillsborough law.
Remains to be seen if the Labour party can make good tracks in the here and now.

 

[Psamathe]

When you look at the voter turn out in mayoral elections it's very low. Even Burnham didn't really have much of a mandate re % of the electorate who voted for him. I'm very wary of giving mayors more power.

Additionally, Mayors have a limited term (4 years?) and thus significant changes to policy can happen frequently in terms of Water Company strategy eg Conservative Mayor pushed Water Companies to "encourage investment through good dividends" then 4 years later Labour Mayor gets elected and "no dividends but reduce bills", etc.

Water companies (under private or public ownership) need a stability not subject to short term political and electoral changes. Government sets regulations, empowers regulator and that would likely stay in place (or minor tweaks) through several Parliaments.

 

[farfromtheland]

The water company bosses used the 'equity' from our infastructure to underpin dodgy investments in futures markets, if US experience is anything to go by.