It’s a phenomena that is more than a little mind-blowing. Keir Starmer’s government ordered a review of the water industry in October that is supposed to be the ‘largest since privatisation’. Yet it prevented the review – undertaken by Jon Cunliffe, a former deputy governor of the Bank of England – from even considering public ownership as a solution. It’s akin to the government ordering Cunliffe to find the answer to eight times eight, as long as it cannot be 64.
Labour’s review of the water industry: a “sales pitch” rather than real review
The review dropped on 3 June. And unsurprisingly campaigners tore it apart.
James Wallace, the chief executive of River Action, said:
This interim report signals some progress on regulation, but it reads more like a sales pitch to international investors and overpaid CEOs than the urgent restructuring of corrupted water companies. We ask the commission to learn from other countries how to ensure water companies are owned, financed and operated for public benefit.
Indeed, in the review Cunliffe pitches to investors that they can have a “low-risk” long term investment that all but guarantees profit. The thing is, the lack of risk is precisely why it should be in public ownership.
90% of the planet has water in public hands. It makes no sense to rent something so vital to our survival. The idea we should sell off the water supply is remarkably myopic. And 80% of the UK public agrees with that, as campaign group We Own It’s Hugo Fearnley pointed out on the BBC:
🚨Breaking 🚨
Government’s water report, released today, has a gaping hole in it!
No mention of public ownership as a solution. There’s a reason 90% of the world runs water in public hands – it works. ✅
PS think BBC has confused @HugoFearnley with @HugoSAS 😂#waterreport pic.twitter.com/Rs38wUwC5y
— We Own It (@We_OwnIt) June 3, 2025
The review states:
There is no simple, single change, no matter how radical, that will deliver the fundamental ‘reset’ of the water sector that is the governments’ objective
Except obviously, a publicly owned approach that the government has outright prevented Cunliffe from considering.
“Pollution for profit”
Giles Bristow, the chief executive of Surfers Against Sewage, said:
The criminal behaviour, chronic lack of investment and woeful mismanagement which has led to sewage filled seas is a direct result of our profit driven system. This interim report begins to recognise this, but as yet does not spell out the need to end pollution for profit
A public-good approach to water could mandate fixing the sewage system through redirecting profit and shareholder dividends to investment. Quantitative easing or a wealth tax could also contribute to the investment which could cost tens of billions, with campaigners previously calling sky-high figures of £660bn ‘scaremongering’.
If the government can create money to prop up the banking system after the 2008 crash, it can do so to protect the environment, thereby, at the very least, removing the interest payments paid on private sector loans and government bonds.
In parliament, meanwhile, Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer has made an astute point in favour of public ownership:
Privatisation is just not working. The experiment has failed… Water is a natural monopoly. For example, people who live in the south-west, as I do, cannot choose to be supplied by Yorkshire Water.
I am not sure that they would want to, but my point is that when their provider gives a poor service and charges extortionate sums, they cannot take their business elsewhere. There is no fair competition.
You get what you get, and you cannot get upset about it—but we are upset about it, because sewage is being pumped into our water, and we are paying through the nose for the privilege, all while shareholders profit.
Featured image via the Canary
