Will Labour's water 'revolution' work?
As Environment Secretary, Steve Reed has the unenviable task of cleaning up this mess. 'Loyalty and gratitude are the hallmarks of politicians. And that's the only way I can account for being rewarded with the department for sewage and angry farmers,' he quipped at a recent Parliamentary Press Gallery lunch.
Since entering office, aides say, he has focused on 'three Rs'. The first – 'reset' – saw Labour pass the Water (Special Measures) Act, which introduced new criminal penalties for polluting water company bosses and banned the payment of bonuses to those who fail to meet high standards. The second – 'rebuild' – saw Reed secure £104bn of planned private sector investment that he says will allow the government to halve sewage pollution by 2030. The third is 'revolution'. Today's 465-page report by Jon Cunliffe, the former Bank of England deputy governor, calls for the abolition of Ofwat (a recommendation Reed has accepted) and the creation of a new regulator to ensure water companies 'act in the public as well as the private interest'.
After its fraught first year in government, Labour senses a political opportunity. Action against water companies is both salient – polling by More in Common, shared with the New Statesman, shows that 95 per cent of people regard reducing sewage pollution as important or very important to them – and unifying. Reform voters (73 per cent) and Green voters (75 per cent) alike view it as a high priority.
Yet for all the talk of revolution, some will be disappointed by Labour's reformism. Though England is one of only two countries in the world with a fully privatised water and sewage system (the second being Wales), Cunliffe's report did not assess the case for nationalisation, which Reed ruled out of scope.
The revival of public ownership under Labour – the railways, GB Energy, steel (almost) – has prompted new demands to 'take back water'. But Reed insists that this is neither feasible nor desirable. 'The franchises for rail are seven years long and then they come to an end, so [renationalisation] is possible without having to buy them back. If you wanted to buy back the water companies, it would cost in excess of £100bn – and that's money that would have to be taken away from schools and the health service,' he told me earlier this year, arguing that weak regulation was the greatest problem.
Reform, by contrast, in its populist guise, has vowed to bring 50 per cent of the water industry under public ownership. Nigel Farage's struggle yesterday to explain how much this would cost ('I don't know') gave Labour much pleasure but water remains a paradigmatic example of the challenge this government faces.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
An industry that was neglected under the Conservatives now requires emergency intervention. Bills, like taxes, will rise – by an average of 36 per cent in England and Wales over the next five years – to fund investment in creaking infrastructure. Reed, seeking to put himself on the side of the public, has declared himself 'furious'. But as they pick up the tab, will they accept his solidarity?
Reed hopes that water will become a visible example of the difference Labour has made. 'This beautiful, iconic lake will once again be pristine and full of fish,' he told me of a recent visit to Windermere (sewage discharges have turned the lake green). 'It's by focusing on the politics of place that we can start to rebuild trust and address the challenge from the extremes.'
But in an age of outrage, the risk for Labour is that no amount of delivery trumps Reform's raw populism.
This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here
[See also: The decline and fall of Great Britain]
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
The wealth tax options Reeves could take to ease her fiscal bind
Faced with a challenging set of numbers, the chancellor is having to make difficult choices with political consequences. Tax rises and spending cuts are a hard sell. Now, some in her party are calling for a different approach: target the wealthy. Is there a way out of all of this for the chancellor? Economic growth is disappointing and spending pressures are mounting. The government was already examining ways to raise revenue when, earlier this month, Labour backbenchers forced the government to abandon welfare cuts and reinstate winter fuel payments - blowing a £6bn hole in the budget. The numbers are not adding up for Rachel Reeves, who is steadfastly committed to her fiscal rules. Short of more spending cuts, her only option is to raise taxes - taxes that are already at a generational high. For some in her party - including Lord Kinnock, the former Labour leader, the solution is simple: introduce a new tax. They say a flat wealth tax, targeting those with assets above £10m, could raise £12bn for the public purse. Yet, the government is reportedly reluctant to pursue such a path. It is not convinced that wealth taxes will work. The evidence base is shaky and the debate over the efficacy of these types of taxes has divided the economics community. 1:16 Why are we talking about wealth? Wealth taxes are in the headlines but calls for this type of reform have been growing for some time. Proponents of the change point to shifts in our economy that will be obvious to most people living in Britain: work does not pay in the way it used to. At the same time wealth inequality has risen. The stock of wealth - that is the total value of everything owned - is much larger than our income, that is the total amount of money earned in a year. That disparity has been growing, especially during that era of low interest rates after 2008 that fuelled asset prices, while wages stagnated. It means the average worker will have to work for more years to buy assets, say a house, for example. Left-wing politicians and economists argue that instead of putting more pressure on workers - marginal income tax rates are as high as 70% for some workers - the government should instead target some of this accumulated wealth in order to balance the books. 2:19 The Inheritocracy At the heart of it all is a very straightforward argument about fairness. Few will argue that there aren't problems with the way our economy is functioning: that it is unfair that young people are struggling to buy homes and raise families. Proponents of a wealth tax say that it would not only raise revenue but create a fairer tax system. They argue that the wealth distortions are creating a divided society, where people's outcomes are determined by their inheritances. The gap is large. A typical 50-year old born to the poorest 20% of parents in the UK is already worth just a quarter of what someone born to the richest 20% of parents is worth at that age. This is before they inherit anything when their parents die. A lot of money is passed on earlier; for example, people may have had help buying their first home. That gap widens when the inheritance is passed on. This is when inheritance tax, one of the existing wealth taxes we have in the UK, kicks in. However, its impact in addressing that imbalance is negligible. Most people don't meet the threshold to pay it. The government could bring more people into the tax but it is already a deeply unpopular policy. 1:51 Alternatives So what other options could they explore? Lord Kinnock recently suggested a new tax on the stock of wealth - one to two percent on assets over £10m. That could raise between £12bn and £24bn. When making the case for the tax, Lord Kinnock told Sky News: "That kind of levy does two things. One is to secure resources, which is very important in revenues. "But the second thing it does is to say to the country, 'we are the government of equity'. This is a country which is very substantially fed up with the fact that whatever happens in the world, whatever happens in the UK, the same interests come out on top unscathed all the time while everybody else is paying more for getting services." However, there is a lot of scepticism about some of these numbers. Wealthier people tend to be more mobile and adept at arranging their tax affairs. Determining the value of their assets can be a challenge. In Downing Street, the fear is that they will simply leave, rendering the policy a failure. Policymakers are already fretting that a recent crackdown on non-doms will do the same. Critics point to countries where wealth taxes have been tried and repealed. Proponents say we should learn from their mistakes and design something better. Some say the government could start by improving existing taxes, such as capital gains tax - which people pay when they sell a second property or shares, for example. The Labour government has already raised capital gains tax rates but bringing them in line with income tax could raise £12bn. Then there is the potential for National Insurance contributions on investment income - such as rent from property or dividends. Estimates suggest that could bring in another £11bn. This is nothing to sniff at for a chancellor who needs to find tens of billions of pounds in order to balance her books. By the same token, she is operating on such fine margins that she can't afford to get the calculation wrong. There is no easy way out of this fiscal bind for Rachel Reeves. Whether wealth taxes are the solution or not, hers is a government that has promised reform and creative thinking. The tax system would be a good place to start.
Powys County Times
2 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Blair's fury with Chirac over Mugabe summit invite
Papers released by the National Archives show Mr Blair erupted with anger when he learned Mr Chirac was insisting the Zimbabwean president should be allowed to attend an EU-Africa summit due to be held in 2003. 'But this is the opposite of what he said to me,' he scrawled in a handwritten note after No 10 officials told him Mr Chirac feared South African president Thabo Mbeki would stay away from the gathering unless Mr Mugabe was invited. Tony Blair wanted to be 'pretty fierce' with president Robert Mugabe (PA) 'Ultimately if France wants to take the heat on this they can and probably they are using it to damage the UK's standing in Africa in the belief (mistaken) that Mugabe retains credibility. 'But we should be seen to do all we can to protest.' The row came as Zimbabwe was caught up in a worsening spiral of violence and economic collapse after Mr Mugabe instigated a violent campaign to drive the country's remaining white farmers from their lands. Mr Blair's Labour government was at the forefront of international efforts to pressurise Mr Mugabe to end the chaos, implement democratic reforms and restore the rule of law. The UK's intervention was, however, deeply resented by Mr Mugabe who argued that – as the former colonial power – Britain should be paying reparations to his country. As the situation worsened Mr Blair noted that they needed to be 'pretty fierce on Mugabe' if they were to make any progress. Nelson Mandela told Tony Blair that Mr Mugabe should be treated with respect (Matthew Fearn/PA) He was, however, warned by South Africa's former president Nelson Mandela that – as a veteran of Africa's struggles for liberation from colonial rule – Mr Mugabe still needed to be treated with respect. 'Despite the recent turmoil in Zimbabwe we must not forget that President Mugabe is a statesman who has made a major contribution not only to Zimbabwe's independence but to the liberation of southern Africa,' he wrote in a letter to the prime minister. 'He deserves our good will, support and advice. As friends we should be able to discuss the issue of land redistribution, the rule of law and violence frankly and constructively with him.' Meanwhile, efforts to foster better Anglo-French co-operation on Africa were hampered by a deep personal antipathy between Mr Chirac and Britain's international development secretary Clare Short. Sir John Holmes, Britain's ambassador to Paris, said Mr Chirac had taken him aside to complain that she was 'viscerally anti-French and 'insupportable''. He contrasted her attitude with the good working relationship French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine had enjoyed with his British counterpart Jack Straw and before him Robin Cook. 'Vedrine and Cook had worked well together, and Vedrine and Straw were continuing in the same vein. But Ms Short was impossible,' Sir John reported the French president as saying. 'He had not liked to raise this with the prime minister because they always had lots of other things to talk about, but we needed to know the position. In typical Chirac fashion, he laboured the point for several minutes.' When Sir John assured him that Ms Short's views had been 'transformed' in the light of a recent trip to the region by Mr Vedrine, the French president replied 'God be praised'.
South Wales Guardian
2 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Blair's fury with Chirac over Mugabe summit invite
Papers released by the National Archives show Mr Blair erupted with anger when he learned Mr Chirac was insisting the Zimbabwean president should be allowed to attend an EU-Africa summit due to be held in 2003. 'But this is the opposite of what he said to me,' he scrawled in a handwritten note after No 10 officials told him Mr Chirac feared South African president Thabo Mbeki would stay away from the gathering unless Mr Mugabe was invited. 'Ultimately if France wants to take the heat on this they can and probably they are using it to damage the UK's standing in Africa in the belief (mistaken) that Mugabe retains credibility. 'But we should be seen to do all we can to protest.' The row came as Zimbabwe was caught up in a worsening spiral of violence and economic collapse after Mr Mugabe instigated a violent campaign to drive the country's remaining white farmers from their lands. Mr Blair's Labour government was at the forefront of international efforts to pressurise Mr Mugabe to end the chaos, implement democratic reforms and restore the rule of law. The UK's intervention was, however, deeply resented by Mr Mugabe who argued that – as the former colonial power – Britain should be paying reparations to his country. As the situation worsened Mr Blair noted that they needed to be 'pretty fierce on Mugabe' if they were to make any progress. He was, however, warned by South Africa's former president Nelson Mandela that – as a veteran of Africa's struggles for liberation from colonial rule – Mr Mugabe still needed to be treated with respect. 'Despite the recent turmoil in Zimbabwe we must not forget that President Mugabe is a statesman who has made a major contribution not only to Zimbabwe's independence but to the liberation of southern Africa,' he wrote in a letter to the prime minister. 'He deserves our good will, support and advice. As friends we should be able to discuss the issue of land redistribution, the rule of law and violence frankly and constructively with him.' Meanwhile, efforts to foster better Anglo-French co-operation on Africa were hampered by a deep personal antipathy between Mr Chirac and Britain's international development secretary Clare Short. Sir John Holmes, Britain's ambassador to Paris, said Mr Chirac had taken him aside to complain that she was 'viscerally anti-French and 'insupportable''. He contrasted her attitude with the good working relationship French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine had enjoyed with his British counterpart Jack Straw and before him Robin Cook. 'Vedrine and Cook had worked well together, and Vedrine and Straw were continuing in the same vein. But Ms Short was impossible,' Sir John reported the French president as saying. 'He had not liked to raise this with the prime minister because they always had lots of other things to talk about, but we needed to know the position. In typical Chirac fashion, he laboured the point for several minutes.' When Sir John assured him that Ms Short's views had been 'transformed' in the light of a recent trip to the region by Mr Vedrine, the French president replied 'God be praised'.
