A tanker pumping out excess sewage from the Lightlands Lane sewage pumping station in Cookham, Berskhire which flooded after heavy rainfall, January 10, 2024
WATER COMPANY fat cats are being rewarded for decades of criminal behaviour, a Labour MP said today after the industry regulator announced an average £86 bill hike from April.
Clive Lewis said billpayers are paying for crooks as he called for water firms to be nationalised and Ofwat abolished.
The MP for Norwich South said: “Ofwat is making us pay for decades of criminal behaviour by water companies.
“The regulator turned a blind eye to years of these companies’ widespread illegal sewage dumping.
“Privatisation is a failed experiment. We deserve a public ownership model prioritising people and the environment over profit.”
Ofwat said that the steep rise is part of bill increases in England and Wales over the next five years that will pay for supply upgrades and to reduce sewage discharges.
This is despite water companies doubling their profits since 2019.
Adrian Ramsay MP, Green Party Co-leader. Wikipedia CC.
Reacting to news that government and regulators have broken the law by being too lenient on water companies that spill sewage, and on the day Thames Water seeks a £3bn bailout, Green Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay MP said:
“For too long billions have been leaking out to shareholders instead of going into fixing our broken water system. But it will be water customers who are expected to bail out this failed model of privatisation through steep hikes to water bills.
“The way to end this fiasco and ensure government and regulators keep within the law is to put failing water companies into special administration and ultimately to bring water back into public ownership.”
Demands for renationalization of water services in England grows as private London water supplier requests bailout
Social justice organizations in Britain are urging judges to reject a bailout request from Thames Water, one of the country’s largest water providers, serving some 16 million people in the greater London area. Campaigners argue that approving the bailout of the private utility provider would allow Thames Water to continue its mismanagement while forcing consumers to shoulder the burden—raising annual water bills by £250 (USD 317) per user.
“This is daylight robbery. There are two people who can stop it, the judge in court today and Steve Reed, the environment secretary. He can protect billpayers from this by withdrawing Thames Water’s license, on the basis of financial insolvency, illegal sewage dumping, or both,” Cat Hobbs, Director of We Own It, told Peoples Dispatch. “Tony Blair’s government defended the public interest when Railtrack went bust, why won’t this government do the same for Thames Water?”
The company warned that without the bailout, it would run out of funds by March next year. However, Thames Water customers predict that they will be unfairly burdened with the costs of the bailout, including the high interest rates that will follow, while company management will face little accountability. The We Own It campaign noted that “it is obvious that the consumer as the sole source of revenue will indirectly fund this amount by way of increases in their water bills.”
While claiming financial difficulties, Thames Water has managed to secure substantial profit margins for its investors—many of whom are based outside Britain and remain unaffected by the declining quality of local water services—while awarding generous bonuses to its management. This pattern is not unique to Thames Water: all water and sewage companies across England have followed a similar path since privatization under Margaret Thatcher’s administration. During this time, these companies have paid out £72 billion (91 billion USD) to shareholders while accumulating £60 billion (76 billion USD) in debt. The result has been a chronic lack of investment in infrastructure, leading to leaks of both water and money.
“The argument for privatization was that there would be more investment, the water would be cheaper, and the service would be more efficient,” independent MP Jeremy Corbyn remarked during a discussion on water services earlier this year. “It’s really worked out well on that, hasn’t it?”
A risk to ecosystem and human health
In addition to financial losses, privatization has led to a significant decline in water safety and quality. Private operators have regularly discharged untreated sewage into rivers and the sea, causing harm to ecosystems and posing a direct threat to human health. Regulators, meanwhile, are unable to enforce compliance with safety standards due to conflicts of interest, low fine thresholds and the fact that the infrastructure itself remains under the companies’ ownership.
Unlike other European countries that experimented with water privatization by outsourcing service provision but mostly retaining ownership of infrastructure, England sold everything. As a result, rather than waiting for contracts to expire and reclaiming control, the government would need to buy back the entire water system from companies like Thames Water. According to We Own It, the initial cost for this process could start around £15 billion (19 billion USD)—an amount the campaign estimates could be repaid within just six years.
Re-nationalizing water services has led to significant successes in other countries, according to Matthew Topham, Lead Campaigner at We Own It. “Paris took back control of its drinking water in 2010 from an outsourced private contract. Bills were immediately lowered, customer satisfaction levels are high, and last year, they were able to reinvest 89 million euros in improving the network,” he explains. He adds that public ownership has also sparked community participation, with cities like Lima, Terrassa, and Paris establishing observatories to give communities, workers, and activists a voice in managing water services.
Campaigners against the Thames Water bailout are calling precisely for a return to public ownership. They argue that this approach would not only lower costs for users but also create space for more investment in infrastructure, improving water quality. This demand resonates with over 80% of the British public, who support the idea of water services being brought back into public hands.
The Labour government, however, does not share this vision. Under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, the party’s program included an ambitious plan to renationalize water services. By 2024, Labour’s election program had moved away from this idea, keeping only the possibility of granting “new powers” to regulators to block bonuses for companies proven to pollute watercourses. As many on the left predicted ahead of the July 2024 election, Keir Starmer’s administration has shown a clear inclination toward privatization, not only in water services but also in healthcare and other sectors.
The final decision on Thames Water’s bailout request is expected in early 2025, with campaigners urging the court to consider users’ concerns and reject the proposal, paving the way for better water services.
Argentine President Javier Milei. Photo: Milei / X
At one year of Milei’s presidency, we take stock of his economic policies, the impact on the working class, and perspectives for the future
A year ago, what many considered unthinkable a couple of years ago happened: Javier Milei, the eccentric libertarian economist who was almost compulsively invited by the media to increase ratings, was sworn in as president of Argentina. Gone was the neoliberal and demure option of the Argentine right wing that managed to triumph with Mauricio Macri, as well as the always latent Peronist option, which could not overcome the obstacles that the government of Alberto Fernandez left in its path.
Milei became a celebrated outsider who confronted his adversaries directly (often insulting and humiliating them), promising to lift the country out of poverty through a radical liberalization of the economy, with bold, or absurd, proposals to dollarize the economy and the eliminate the central bank. Indeed, his style as a guest on television programs was not too far removed from his actions as president of Argentina.
Erika Giménez, social communicator and a journalist with ARG Medios told Peoples Dispatch that Milei arrived with a promise that he was going to “break the State” and end all state social programs and aid to impoverished sectors because they are “a waste of money that prevents Argentina’s resurgence as a great country.” Did he succeed in his grandiose vision? What did the “lion” of Argentina manage to accomplish in his first year of governance?
Falling inflation and rising poverty
One of Milei’s main obsessions was to reduce inflation at all costs. After several setbacks that ended up increasing inflation, in October it was recorded that inflation had risen by 2.3%, the lowest percentage in several years. To achieve this, he had no qualms about firing tens of thousands of state workers (almost 36,000 according to the National Institute of Statistics and Census) and aggressively cutting the number of ministries (from 18 to 9). Social programs that had been a bulwark of the Republic for several decades were eliminated. Of the state workers who survived the layoffs, almost all have seen a reduction in their purchasing power as a consequence of the economic retrenchment policies.
Similarly, despite the fact that year-on-year inflation stood at 193%, retirees’ pensions only increased by 105%, meaning that retired elderly workers today, thanks to Milei’s government, can buy fewer things than before, because their pension was not adjusted for inflation. This incongruity provoked several mobilizations by retirees.
Likewise, Milei has refused to increase the public education budget so as not to affect the much-desired “fiscal balance”, which has led to a decline in the quality of education in the country. Also, hospital workers (doctors, nurses, and others) have reported that they have lost almost 104% of their purchasing power, which puts the country’s health care system at risk.
In addition, according to Erica Giménez, inflation is currently decreasing, among other things, because people are not able to buy goods, which causes stores to reduce prices to sell more. This can lead to a distorted view of inflation as the only measure of economic improvement because, in reality, it is actually masking a more serious problem: people have lost purchasing power. “[The decrease in inflation] is quite a deceptive figure because people cannot consume because their salary is not enough to do so…The macroeconomic meters improve (as Milei wants) by not generating fiscal deficit, but this happens at the cost of the increase of unemployment, of retirement pensions, of the most needy, and of so many who are nowadays below the poverty line,” Giménez affirms.
One of the cases which shone a light on the ridiculous nature of his radical adjustment was what happened with the social kitchens, soup kitchens run oftentimes by left and progressive community organizations. Milei’s government and his Minister of Human Capital Sandra Pettovello were involved in a serious controversy when it was shown that, while the kitchens were subjected to serious budget cuts as part of the fiscal adjustment which made it impossible to feed the increasing number of hungry people, several tons of food were rotting in State warehouses. The Argentine courts had to order the immediate distribution of the food.
The defunding of university education
Probably the most important internal challenge faced by Milei during this first year was the massive demonstrations of students, professors, and university workers against the Executive’s refusal to increase the university budget. The Legislature had passed a law allowing for the budget increase, but Milei refused to comply with it and vetoed it completely. This generated a lot of discontent among Argentine students who took to the streets against the austerity policies of Milei’s libertarian government, and even went so far as to take over dozens of universities and hold university classes in the streets as a form of protest.
Giménez says in this regard, “Those who lose the most with [the veto of the law] are the professors of public universities who today are within the poor population…According to several surveys, the majority of the population agrees with the public character of health, education, etc., and of the Argentine State as protector and benefactor of these areas, so Mieli’s discourse against universities did not work because…public university education has great popular support.”
International relations
Milei has repeatedly stated that Argentina was, at some point in its history, the first world power. Therefore, what his government should do, according to his rhetoric, is to turn it into a great world power again. This “messianic” bet is synthesized in the often-used slogan “Make Argentina Great Again”, which evidently is reminiscent of Trump’s MAGA. “But Argentina never had a geopolitical weight that Milei says it once had as a first power,” Giménez tells us.
During the vote on whether or not to lift the US economic blockade of Cuba, Argentina voted along with almost all countries to call for an end to the blockade. In retaliation, Milei fired his foreign minister for this vote. According to Giménez, Argentina has historically voted against the blockade and supported other progressive international issues because it hopes that other countries will support its intention to recover the Malvinas Islands, which are currently under British control. Milei however, has wanted to assume a Trumpist international logic, says Giménez, and has assumed a fight against LGBTIQ+ groups and measures to curb climate change, while manifesting strong support in favor of Israel and the United States.
That is why the discussions at the UN on the prevention of violence against girls and women, the ceasefire in Palestine, and the withdrawal of the Argentine delegation from COP29, show the rejection of certain political causes which the president himself calls “the Cultural Battle”. As part of this battle he has attacked journalists, politicians and intellectuals, and founded the new think tank Faro Foundation whose objective is to: “To promote the ideas of economic liberalism and the historical values of Argentine culture, in order to contribute to the economic and social development of our Nation, fighting the cultural battle.” This confrontational attitude has led him to have several impasses with regional political leaders such as Colombian President Gustavo Petro.
But this confrontational attitude, more typical of a media commentator, has its limits. For example, Giménez reminds us that after announcing before his presidency that he would never negotiate with China because they are communists, Milei eventually had to negotiate with Beijing because of the importance of that country for the Argentine economy.
Likewise, Milei has openly positioned himself behind the geopolitical line of US President-elect Donald Trump, attending several select meetings organized by the US president. Milei, according to Giménez, intends to position himself, unsuccessfully, as an international leader who will inspire a global political transformation. Perhaps that is why he has made more trips abroad than within the country, especially to the United States. Likewise, his closeness with the International Monetary Fund stands out.
His revisionist ideological struggle
Milei has also had a significant impact on the ideological dispute in Argentina with his bizarre and aggressive speeches.
For example, he said that he would be delighted to drive the last nail in the coffin of former Peronist president Cristina Fernández, who is the subject of a judicial process that seeks to disqualify her politically and put her in prison.
He has also questioned the figures of human rights organizations on the number of dead and disappeared caused by the last military dictatorship in Argentina. His vice-president, Victoria Villarruel, is a descendant of a military family and before his death, had paid a personal visit to Rafael Videla, head of the last military dictatorship. Milei wants Argentines to forget the dictatorship as if it’s something that can be left behind, says Giménez. In order for Milei to advance his political and ideological project to “make Argentina great again”, he must break certain established and socially consensual notions “and generate other discourses closer to capitalism, revisionist, discuss the importance of the university and public employment…and that includes relativizing one of the darkest periods of Argentine history such as the military dictatorship,” Giménez explains.
Milei has vigorously gone after his ambitious goals of economic liberalization and austerity, without asking “at what cost?” The significant rejection of such policies by broad sectors of the population and the deepening of social conflict will continue and intensify. Milei still has three years left in his presidency, so the future of his government is uncertain. What is certain is that he does not seem to be slowing down his pretensions, but rather accelerating the radical neoliberal program that he defends to the hilt.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting arrives in Downing Street, London, for a Cabinet meeting, December 3, 2024
HEALTH Secretary Wes Streeting has been urged to honour the New Deal for Working People after failing to back a Unison NHS strike over a £100 million-plus privatisation plan.
More than 350 facilities workers are on a three-week walkout over East Suffolk and North Essex Foundation Trust (ESNEFT’s) plans to outsource their jobs.
Large NHS contracts such as this need Cabinet Office approval but Mr Streeting has said he will not intervene in the trust’s outsourcing bid despite Labour’s promise for the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation, a union source said.
His stance has attracted criticism from Labour MPs, Unison and NHS campaigners, with ESNEFT’s board of directors expected to rubber-stamp the outsourcing of their soft facilities management contract tomorrow.
Eastern Unison head of health Caroline Hennessy said: “Moving these essential teams out of the NHS is a false economy and goes against government pledges on insourcing.
“The trust has spent months trying to justify its ill-thought-out plans to privatise the jobs of these key staff and has failed to win any of the arguments.”
