Thames Water is seeking to raise the funds it needs to avoid short-term nationalisation. Photograph: Maureen McLean/Rex/Shutterstock
‘Economically illiterate’ Defra letter sent to anti-sewage groups cites 2018 report commissioned by water companies
Labour used “economically illiterate” analysis paid for by water companies in order to argue against the nationalisation of the sector, the Guardian can reveal.
In an official letter recently sent to anti-sewage groups, civil servants cited a paper by the Social Market Foundation as a reason to avoid nationalisation as part of its review of the sector. The report from 2018 was commissioned by United Utilities, Anglian Water, Severn Trent and South West Water.
The letter, sent by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to the Rivers Trust, Surfers Against Sewage, River Action UK and Greenpeace states: “The Social Market Foundation calculated the likely cost of renationalisation to be £90bn, drawing on publicly available data from Ofwat, the London Stock Exchange and the annual accounts of the water companies. Renationalisation would impose a huge burden on the public purse at a time when public finances are already stretched.”
Sir Dieter Helm, a leading economist, called the analysis “economically illiterate”.
Moody’s rating agency has disputed this figure and estimated that nationalisation could actually cost £14.5bn – a fraction of the analysis amount.
Earlier this month, Steve Reed, the environment secretary, announced a review into the water companies and the regulators, but said nationalisation was firmly off the table. He said it would cost “billions of pounds” and would not solve the sewage crisis.
Keir Starmer explains that he feels no shame or guilt benefitting personally from gifts from the rich and powerful while insisting on policies of severe austerity causing suffering and death.
Latest Opinium poll for the Observer shows Labour leader got the opposite of a ‘bounce’ from Liverpool party conference
Keir Starmer’s personal ratings dropped further during his first Labour conference as prime minister, according to the latest Opinium poll for the Observer.
While party leaders hope for a conference bounce as a result of wall-to-wall media coverage, Starmer suffered the reverse effect, as his ratings plunged to their lowest ever level, and well below those of Rishi Sunak.
Last night’s resignation of the whip by Labour MP Rosie Duffield, who cited Starmer’s “cruel and unnecessary” policies on winter fuel and the two child benefit cap, will further add to the sense of unease in party ranks, less than three months after its sensational general election win.
Even before the Labour gathering in Liverpool – originally billed as a chance to celebrate its return to power after 14 years – Starmer’s ratings had collapsed 45 points since July to -26 by last weekend (with 24% approving of the job he was doing, against 50% who disapproved). Conference week, however, saw a further drop of four points to -30, by far the lowest he has ever recorded.
Zionist Keir Starmer is quoted “I support Zionism without qualification.” He’s asked whether that means that he supports Zionism under all circumstances, whatever Zionists do.
Keir Starmer explains that he feels no shame or guilt benefitting personally from gifts from the rich and powerful while insisting on policies of severe austerity causing suffering and death.
MP Rosie Duffield says she is quitting Labour over leader Keir Starmer’s “cruel” policies and “hypocrisy” over his acceptance of gifts.
In her resignation letter, published by the Sunday Times, the Canterbury MP lambasts the prime minister for accepting gifts worth tens of thousands of pounds while scrapping the winter fuel payment and keeping the two-child benefit cap.
In the letter she said the “revelations” since the change of government in July had been “staggering and increasingly outrageous”.
“I cannot put into words how angry I and my colleagues are at your total lack of understanding about how you have made us all appear.”
…
Dear Sir Keir,
Usually letters like this begin, “It is with a heavy heart…” Mine has been increasingly heavy and conflicted and has longed for a degree of relief.
I can no longer stay a Labour MP under your management of the party, and this letter is my notice that I wish to resign the Labour Party whip with immediate effect.
Although many “last straws” have led to my decision, my reason for leaving now is the programme of policies you seem determined to stick to, however unpopular they are with the electorate and your own MPs.
You repeat often that you will make the “tough decisions” and that the country is “all in this together”. But those decisions do not directly affect any one of us in Parliament. They are cruel and unnecessary, and affect hundreds of thousands of our poorest, most vulnerable constituents.
This is not what I was elected to do. It is not even wise politics, and it certainly is not “the politics of service”.
I did not vote for you to lead our party for reasons I won’t describe in detail here. But, as someone elevated immediately to a shadow cabinet position without following the usual path of honing your political skills on the backbenches, you had very little previous political footprint. It was therefore unclear what your political passions, drive or direction might be as the leader of the Labour Party, a large movement of people united by a desire for social justice and support for those most in need.
You also made the choice not to speak up once about the Labour Party’s problems with antisemitism during your time in the shadow cabinet, leaving that to backbenchers, including new MPs such as me.
Since you took office as Leader of the Opposition you have used various heavy-handed management tactics but have never shown what most experienced backbenchers would recognise as true or inspiring leadership.
You have never regularly engaged with your own backbench MPs, many of whom have been in Parliament far longer than you, and some of whom served in the previous Labour government.
You have chosen neither to seek our individual political opinions, nor learn about our constituency experiences, nor our specific or collective areas of political knowledge. We clearly have nothing you deem to be of value.
Your promotion of those with no proven political skills and no previous parliamentary experience but who happen to be related to those close to you, or even each other, is frankly embarrassing.
In particular, the recent treatment of Diane Abbott, now Mother of the House, was deeply shameful and led to comments from voters across the political spectrum. A woman of her political stature and place in history is deserving of respect and support, regardless of political differences.
As Prime Minister, your managerial and technocratic approach, and lack of basic politics and political instincts, have come crashing down on us as a party after we worked so hard, promised so much, and waited a long fourteen years to be mandated by the British public to return to power.
Since the change of government in July, the revelations of hypocrisy have been staggering and increasingly outrageous. I cannot put into words how angry I and my colleagues are at your total lack of understanding about how you have made us all appear.
How dare you take our longed-for victory, the electorate’s sacred and precious trust, and throw it back in their individual faces and the faces of dedicated and hardworking Labour MPs?! The sleaze, nepotism and apparent avarice are off the scale. I am so ashamed of what you and your inner circle have done to tarnish and humiliate our once proud party.
Someone with far-above-average wealth choosing to keep the Conservatives’ two-child limit to benefit payments which entrenches children in poverty, while inexplicably accepting expensive personal gifts of designer suits and glasses costing more than most of those people can grasp — this is entirely undeserving of holding the title of Labour Prime Minister.
Forcing a vote to make many older people iller and colder while you and your favourite colleagues enjoy free family trips to events most people would have to save hard for — why are you not showing even the slightest bit of embarrassment or remorse?
I now have no confidence in your commitment to deliver the so-called “change” you promised during the General Election campaign and the changes we have been striving for as a political party for over a decade.
My values are those of a democratic socialist Labour Party and I have been elected three times to act on those values on behalf of my constituents. Canterbury made history when its voters elected their first woman, and only non-Conservative, MP since the seat was created in the thirteenth century.
My constituents elected an independent-minded MP who vowed to put constituency before party, and to keep tackling the issues that most affect us here — Brexit fallout, funding for our universities, our desperately struggling East Kent NHS, dire housing situation, repeated sewage pollution and protecting our vital green spaces.
I am confident that I can continue to do so as an independent MP guided by my core Labour values.
Sadly, the Labour Party has never shown any interest in my wonderful constituency in the seven years that I have been in Parliament. But I am proud of my community and will continue to serve them to the best of my ability.
My constituents care deeply about social issues such as child poverty and helping those who cannot help themselves. I will continue to uphold those values as I pledged to do when I first stood before them for election in 2017.
As someone who joined a trade union in my first job, at seventeen, Labour has always been my natural political home. I was elected as a single mum, a former teaching assistant in receipt of tax credits. The Labour Party was formed to speak for those of us without a voice, and I stood for election partly because I saw decisions about the lives of those like me being made in Westminster by only the most privileged few. Right now, I cannot look my constituents in the eye and tell them that anything has changed. I hope to be able to return to the party in the future, when it again resembles the party I love, putting the needs of the many before the greed of the few.
Yours sincerely,
Rosie Duffield MP
Keir Starmer explains that he feels no shame or guilt benefitting personally from gifts from the rich and powerful while insisting on policies of severe austerity causing suffering and death.
Smoke rises above Beirut’s southern suburbs during an Israeli strike on Lebanese residential buildings on September 27, 2024. (Photo: AFP via Getty Images)
While Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah reportedly survived the attack on the densely populated area of Lebanon’s capitol, one observer warned that Israel may still “get the regional war it has sought.”
Israel’s dropping of massive bombs in Beirut on Friday sparked a fresh wave of global condemnation against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with critics accusing him of trying to drag the Middle East into an even bloodier conflict that could engulf the entire region.
The Israeli attack supposedly targeted Hassan Nasrallah, head of the political and paramilitary group Hezbollah. Multiple media outlets reported that the leader survived, though hundreds of others are feared dead in the “complete carnage” from the bombing that leveled several buildings. While the death toll from Friday is not yet clear, over 700 people have been killed in Israel’s strikes in Lebanon since Monday.
Lebanon’s health minister, Firass Abiad, said that there had been a “complete decimation” of four to six residential buildings as a result of the Israeli strikes. He said that the number of casualties in hospitals was low so far because people were still trapped under the rubble. “They are residential buildings. They were filled with people,” Mr. Abiad said. “Whoever is in those buildings is now under the rubble.”
Social media and news sites quickly filled with photos and videos of massive plumes of smoke and smoldering rubble.
While attention fixates on the fate of #Hezbollah leader Hassan #Nasrallah, bear in mind that flattening 6+ high-rise apartment buildings, without prior notice/evacuation, means 100s of casualties.
Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, the United Nations special coordinator for Lebanon, said Friday that she was “deeply alarmed and profoundly worried about the potential civilian impact of tonight’s massive strikes on Beirut’s densely populated southern suburbs. The city is still shaking with fear and panic widespread. All must urgently cease fire.”
However, the bombing is widely expected to worsen this week’s escalation, which came after nearly a year of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) trading strikes with Hezbollah over the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, which has killed over 41,000 Palestinians.
“For Israel, it may not matter if Nasrallah was killed. Either way, it believes it’ll get the regional war it has sought,” Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said of the Friday attack.
Citing an unnamed Israeli official, NBC News reported that “Israel expects Hezbollah will attempt to mount a major retaliatory attack” in response to Friday’s bombing of the group’s command center.
Israel has struck the Hezbollah-controlled southern suburbs of Beirut, known as Dahiyeh, four times over the last week, killing at least three senior Hezbollah military commanders.
But Friday’s attack was far more powerful, with multiple blasts shaking windows across the city, recalling Israeli airstrikes during the war it fought with Hezbollah in 2006.
In a video posted on social media, IDF Spokesperson Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari described the Friday attack as “a precise strike” on what “served as the epicenter of Hezbollah’s terror,” adding that the group’s headquarters “was intentionally built under residential buildings.”
During Netanyahu’s United Nations General Assembly speech on Friday—which was met with a walkout from several diplomats and other officials—the prime minister said that Hezbollah has stored rockets “in schools, in hospitals, in apartment buildings, and in the private homes of the citizens of Lebanon. They endanger their own people. They put a missile in every kitchen, a rocket in every garage.”
In response, Middle East expert Assal Rad said, “So he’s claiming there’s no civilian spaces in Lebanon and Israel has a right to destroy all of it.”
Jason Hickel, who has positions at multiple European universities, also sounded the alarm over those lines from the Israeli leader’s speech.
Netanyahu is “effectively arguing all homes are a military target,” he said. “This is 100% genocidal and this maniac must be stopped.”
The US was reportedly informed of this mass Israeli attack on Beirut in Lebanon shortly beforehand. Comes just one day after US released $8.7 billion more in aid to Israel & hours after Netanyahu told the UN “Israel seeks peace. Israel yearns for peace.”pic.twitter.com/LW2ST4DixB
Hours before the attack in suburban Beirut, the Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DiEM25) strongly condemned “Israel’s brutal bombardment of Lebanon, another reckless escalation in the Middle East on behalf of the Benjamin Netanyahu regime that risks further destabilization in an already fragile region.”
“The Israeli bombardment of Lebanon is the latest dark chapter in a series of disproportionate displays of force. Its ongoing genocide in Palestine over the last year has proven beyond any doubt that its willingness to commit horrific acts knows no bounds,” DiEM25 said. “Rather than seeking a peaceful and just resolution, Israel’s government has consistently chosen the path of militarism, often with international support from the European Union and the United States.”
“The international community, including the E.U., has a critical role to play in promoting peace rather than enabling violence,” the group added. “Peace and security in the Middle East will not come through bombs and military strength. It will come through diplomacy. We remain committed to working towards that aim and stand in solidarity with the Lebanese people, as well as all others suffering from this violent escalation.”
Palestinian supporters protest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Times Square during the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly, September 26, 2024, in New York
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU was accused today of trying to drag Britain and the wider world into Israel’s murderous wars in Lebanon and Gaza.
Large numbers of diplomats from multiple nations walked out as Israel’s prime minister headed to the podium for his speech at the United Nations general assembly meeting in New York.
Mr Netanyahu opened his speech by saying he wanted to “set the record straight” against the “lies” that other nations were telling the meeting of the bloc.
He said that Israel has the right to defend itself from “savage murderers” and claimed that supporting Israel was in the “interest of all of us.”
…
A Stop the War spokesperson said: “Netanyahu is trying to drag the wider world, including Britain, into the murderous wars he is waging in Lebanon and Gaza.
“The British government must use all possible pressure to force Israel to stop the killing and agree a ceasefire in both wars.”
…
In response to Mr Netanyahu’s speech, Green Party co-leader and Bristol Central MP Carla Denyer said: “No-one is winning while Israel turns down ceasefire proposals, more die in Gaza and Lebanon, and hostages are not released.
“The UK government must revoke all arms licences and use all diplomatic power to bring an end to the killing.”
