Go with the flow

Over the past few weeks we've had three letters from Thames Water seeking to gain access to our council flat to fit a smart meter. The first of these was inviting, the second enticing (ie offering a £20 voucher) and the third threatening. None of these tactics has yet elicited a response from us. I daresay we'll take the path of least resistance in the end but, frankly, why would we go out of our way to co-operate with a monopoly private company which has behaved so egregiously?

Originally, our water bill was included as a precept in the rent. More recently we became liable for paying Thames Water direct -  currently just shy of 40 quid a month - which triggered a sizeable refund from the council who had apparently been overcharging for consumption for years. Goodness knows how much that bureaucratic exercise cost and now we are faced with yet more upheaval. 

Do we believe Thames Water's PR that this is all about monitoring leaks and encouraging less wasteful usage? Not on your Nellie! No more than we do their anodyne assurances that our metered bills may well be less than their estimated ones. Thames Water has recklessly squandered any call it may once have had on public trust and confidence. We may have been sceptical about the privatisation of a publicly-owned and -managed asset foisted upon us in 1989 by Margaret Thatcher but we lived in hope of the promised massive investment in much-needed infrastructure upgrades. 

Now, Thames Water, privatised without debt thanks to Thatcher using public money to clear the decks for maximum private profit, is £14 billion (yes, that's nine zeros) in debt. The only dividends have been those reaped by the company's (mainly foreign) shareholders. Meanwhile, our city's mains still routinely burst flooding homes and businesses, our pipes leak, our rivers and beaches are awash with raw sewage from regular overspills and our bills are likely to rise by an average of 40%.

Of the eleven companies that provide water and sewage services in England and Wales, six are owned or controlled by overseas investors from countries including Hong Kong, Canada and Malaysia. As with Thames Water, critics claim that overseas owners have loaded-up our water companies with debt while paying themselves handsome dividends at the expense of investment. According to the regulator, Ofwat*, the sector's total debt reached £60.6 billion (that's another nine zeros) by March last year. These are no longer utilities but futilities, as a result of whose greed and negligence they are now in deep shit (rather like their long-suffering customers) amid growing calls for renationalisation.

And, like our failing rail franchises, one can see that's what's likely to happen with our privatised water and waste sector: it will eventually be taken back into public ownership, with the taxpayer acting as Operator of Last Resort, until the mess (literally) is cleared up, at which point it will be ripe for re-privatisation, once again advantaging private investors after a significant public outlay. Unless, that is, a new government steps in to prevent it ... 

But while we wait for that (and it could be a long wait, with Trent Severn Water allegedly co-ordinating a blocking campaign), Thames Water has the brass neck to pester its customers for access to their homes, with all the disruption and annoyance that implies, in order to sort out something they should have addressed thirty-four years ago at privatisation. Instead, they leave it until they've creamed off all the profit and are about to go bust, which smacks of desperation.

Still, at least we'll relish the irony of a water company going into liquidation!

*An analysis by the Observer has found 27 former Ofwat directors, managers and consultants working in the industry they helped to regulate, with about half in senior posts. Cosy!

Update 25.07.23: Thames Water has admitted it has failed to install a single smart water meter under a flagship £70m programme to fit hundreds of thousands of the devices to support the UK’s “green economic recovery” from Covid-19. Perhaps if they had consulted residents first...?

Popular posts from this blog

On old age

"The fact is that when I come to think it over, I find that there are four reasons for old age being thought unhappy: First, that it withdraws us from active employments; second, that it enfeebles the body; third, that it deprives us of nearly all physical pleasures; fourth, that it is the next step to death."  Writing his essay,  De Senectute (On Old Age), in 44 BCE, Marcus Tullius Cicero went on to refute these four supposed reasons in characteristically robust and forthright manner. Cicero wasn't one to sit about moping in his own old age; he remained actively engaged in the political life of the Republic whose survival, in the face of tyranny, he championed so fiercely.  Cicero was nine years younger than I am now when he met his untimely end yet he considered himself already an old man; or, rather, his society judged him to be so. His second point about age enfeebling is more germane. Physical decline had not yet impacted him but, six years on from my retirement, I
Read more

Born to rule

When, ten days ago, I posted my piece about the manipulated image of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and her children (see Snap Judgment) I didn't know of her cancer treatment. Had I known, I would have adopted a gentler, though I hope no less critical, tone. But I didn't know, and nor did any of us outside the immediate royal circle, which rather goes to strengthen the case against the monarchy. For Kate and her family the diagnosis of cancer (as yet unspecified) will have been a devastating blow, as will the chemotherapy she is currently undergoing. On a human level, of course I sympathise and extend my best wishes for a full recovery as, indeed, I did at the time of her father-in-law's diagnosis. It is particularly cruel, then, that on top of all this she has been obliged to record a video statement to reassure the public. As if she didn't have enough to contend with already. But such is the unpalatable obligation placed upon any royal personage - noblesse oblige. Whic
Read more

Working to rule

An avowed republican I may be but news of King Charles III's cancer diagnosis is nevertheless a cause of sadness - I might not want him, or anyone else, as my king but I wish the man no harm.  However, Jonathan Swift's opinion that "health is the greatest of all possessions; a pale cobbler is better than a sick king" serves as a timely reminder that ill-health in the monarch is not simply a personal matter, it has constitutional implications. To be blunt about it, Charles' death, in constitutional terms at least, would be no great problem; the king is dead, long live the king. The succession is assured and the crown would pass immediately to the Prince of Wales, who would be pronounced William V. The ship of state would sail on. A long-term or debilitating illness, on the other hand, could have far-reaching consequences for the institution of the monarchy at a sensitive time, coming so soon after the death of Britain's longest-reigning monarch, Charles' mo
Read more