
Britain's stubborn inflation is decades in the making
Photo by Jordan Pettitt -This morning's inflation figures contained a nasty surprise. The consumer price index (CPI) was 3.5 per cent higher than last year in April, above the consensus of 3.3 per cent predicted by economists and financial markets. Earlier this month the Bank of England predicted inflation would peak at 3.5 per cent in the third quarter of this year; that peak has arrived already. The biggest contributor to the jump was energy bills – gas prices rose 7.5 per cent – but the second-biggest rise was water bills, which rose 26.1 per cent, the steepest rise since privatisation.
At Prime Minister's Questions this afternoon, Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch traded lines about whose fault the resurgence was, but the fact that water bills made such a significant contribution is a reminder that when your government makes a terrible decision, you pay for it repeatedly.
The public is now paying for the decision to privatise England's water and sewage services in at least three different ways, through both monetary policy and fiscal policy. Firstly, there is the direct cost of higher water bills. The point of privatisation was to keep bills low, and this was one of the main duties of the regulator, Ofwat. However, other countries (such as the Netherlands and Poland) have achieved lower bills for water supply without privatisation. Those countries have also invested in their water infrastructure, while the UK hasn't, and the environmental fallout of this negligence is the reason bills are now rising so steeply here.
But this is not the only way in which you pay for that decision because, as we have seen today, when you and everyone else is paying more for water, this contributes to higher inflation. The Bank of England has one tool to address this: interest rates. By raising its base rate, the Bank can increase the cost of your debts (or, for the more fortunate, the return on your savings) in order to force (or cajole) you into spending less on other things. So you pay a second time, through your mortgage, your car finance, or your credit card bill.
The payments do not stop there, however, because the bad decision will also have a fiscal impact. It introduces new costs to the government – which may have to rescue a failing water company, or provide investment in infrastructure, or to otherwise compensate for the consequences of the decision. To pay for this, the government might raise taxes and take money from you directly. But even if it tries to avoid doing so, you will still pay, because inflation will remain higher and more volatile, and the value of government debt will be eroded. Because government debt is a significant component of your pension fund, this means the bill is once more handed to your future self, to pay for the third or possibly the fourth time.
Where water bills are concerned, it seems pretty unlikely that a new and much more profitable type of water is going to be invented. There is not really a prospect that the profits of the water industry are going to rise to meet the need for investment, and its costs continue to steepen. (To take one example, Southern Water, which announced its annual results this morning, paid its CEO, Lawrence Gosden, £764,200 in 2023/24, a 78.7 per cent rise on the previous year's pay.) The largest provider, Thames Water, is currently the subject of 31 criminal investigations, which will also add to its costs. So, the money for investment will have to come from higher bills, higher interest rates or higher taxes, or possibly all three.
Jagjit Chadha, professor of economics at Cambridge University, says the same principle applies to other areas of the economy, such as railways and roads, which, like water, interact with production and consumption across the economy. The poor management of public assets means that 'the supply side of the economy is restricted', he told me, 'and that means every time a shock comes along, we end up with more persistent and elevated inflation than would otherwise be the case'. The cost-push inflation we see in water bills today is 'a signal of poor economic management since we went headlong into privatisation without appropriate regulations in place, which left us open to these risks that are ultimately borne by the household'.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
The current consensus is that inflation is not on the rise again as it was in 2022 – this month's monetary policy report predicts that having peaked in the autumn it will 'fall back thereafter', which sounds relaxing. A less optimistic model, released this week by the National Institute of Social and Economic Research, suggests it will continue to rise, reaching 5.3 per cent in March 2026. The prospect of trade war (and actual war) make the outlook even more uncertain; an economy with a constrained supply side cannot respond easily to such shocks.
Labour's answer is that we will be rescued from this predicament by economic growth, which Chadha agrees would be great – if it appears. 'You can't conjure it up. It's a get-out-of-jail card, but it's not one you can buy, like in Monopoly. You can wait for it, but you can't bank on it.'
[See also: No one understands Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules]
Related
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Western Telegraph
40 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Water firms would be foolish to increase salaries to get around bonus ban
Six firms have been banned from paying bonuses to senior bosses under new rules that came into force on Friday. Thames Water, Yorkshire Water, Anglian Water, Wessex Water, United Utilities and Southern Water have been told that they cannot issue bonuses for the financial year 2024/25, which concluded in April. Mr Reed said that customers need to have 'confidence' in what water firms are doing, but also said it would not be 'right' for the Government or regulator to be 'capping' salaries in private sector businesses. Businesses need to have an eye on how their customers are feeling about what they are doing Steve Reed Asked if he was going to make sure that firms cannot raise base salaries to compensate for any bonus ban, Mr Reed told Times Radio: 'I think they would be extremely foolish to do anything of the sort that you're describing, because (…) these companies need to rebuild their broken relationship with their customers. 'Their customers need to have confidence in what they're doing, their customers are furious at the fact that they're seeing local waterways being polluted, but bosses taking multimillion-pound bonuses.' He later told the BBC that it would not be 'right' for the Government or regulator to be setting salaries. He told Radio 4's Today programme: ''I don't think it's right that government or regulators should be capping the salaries in private sector businesses. Promise made. Promise delivered. — Steve Reed MP (@SteveReedMP) June 6, 2025 'But those businesses need to have an eye on how their customers are feeling about what they are doing, and there are steps that you can take that are appropriate within regulation.' The firms have all been banned under new rules which prevent bonuses from being paid if a water company does not meet environmental or consumer standards, does not meet financial resilience requirements, or is convicted of a criminal offence. The six companies are not under an indefinite ban, and those firms may be able to offer rewards for the 2025/26 year, provided they stick within the Ofwat rules, under the Water (Special Measures) Act which comes into force on Friday. If a company pays a bonus while it is under a ban, the water regulator Ofwat has the power to get the money back. Under the new rules, Yorkshire Water, United Utilities, Thames Water, and Southern Water will all be unable to pay bonuses to the chief executive or chief financial officer, for the 24/25 financial year. Anglian Water will be banned from paying its chief executive a bonus, but the chief financial officer will not be banned. Wessex Water will be banned from paying its chief financial officer any extra, but the chief executive will be exempt. The exemptions are because people were not in post when the incident that broke Ofwat's rules happened.


Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
New DWP update on State Pension payments for people not due annual uprating
Nearly half a million people will not get new State Pension payments of up to £230.25 per week this year. Following the 4.1 per cent rise in April, the full New Sate Pension is now worth £921 every four-week payment period, while the full Basic State Pension has increased to £705.80. However, an estimated 453,000 pensioners are living in a country which does not have a reciprocal agreement with the UK Government resulting in them not receiving the annual State Pension uprating. This is despite having paid the necessary amount of National Insurance Contributions to receive the state Pension. Campaigners have fought tirelessly to rectify the policy, but on Thursday the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) confirmed it has 'no plans to review such reciprocal social security agreements'. Pensions Minister Torsten Bell gave the written response to Liberal Democrat MP Liz Jarvis, who asked if the DWP 'plans to review its policy on freezing State Pensions for people who move abroad'. Just last month, campaigners wrote to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney ahead of the state opening of parliament on May 27, calling for an end to the so-called 'Frozen Pensions' scandal which affects more than 100,000 expats living in the country. Campaigners urged the former governor of the Bank of England, to 'insist' that addressing the frozen State Pensions 'must form part of any further trade, defence or cultural agreements between the UK and Canada'. Around the globe, some 442,000 British pensioners are living in a country which does not have a reciprocal agreement with the UK Government resulting in them not receiving the annual State Pension uprating. The result is that many retired expats living in Canada receive such low levels of UK State Pension that they fall under Canadian minimum income thresholds, thus qualifying for Canadian taxpayer-funded benefits. After Australia, the country is the second largest host of UK pensioners impacted by the Frozen Pensions scandal. In the letter to Mr Carney on May 20, the 'End Frozen Pensions' campaign argues that 'bringing an end to this discrimination would reduce Canada's costs,' insisting that ending the Frozen Pensions policy is now 'a matter of fairness, dignity, and economic justice' that is 'long overdue for resolution.' Second World War veteran, Mrs Anne Puckridge, is among the victims of the Frozen Pensions scandal. The 100-year-old moved to Canada in 2001 to be closer to her daughter and receives just £72.50 per week from the UK State Pension. This is less than half the £176.45 weekly rate she would be entitled to if she had remained in the UK, or lived across the border in the USA. Campaigners said the policy has caused her severe emotional distress as, like most other victims, she says she was never told her UK State Pension would be frozen at the point of emigration. As a result, the Canadian government is providing her with additional means-tested financial support to help her afford basic living costs. At the time, Edwina Melville-Gray, Chair of End Frozen Pensions Canada, said: 'It is clear this outdated and deeply hurtful policy is heightening tensions between Canada and the UK." She explained how the State Opening of Parliament was Mr Carney's "chance to set the record straight and insist that it will no longer tolerate paying for British pensioners in Canada while the UK shows no interest in fulfilling its moral duty towards them". The campaigner continued: "Canada more than meets its end of the bargain here by paying out a fully indexed State Pension to all its citizens worldwide, including Canadians in the UK. Mr Carney should insist that if the UK is to meaningfully trade and negotiate with Canada, it must reconsider its own approach to overseas state pensions.' However, despite the letter and turnout of campaigners on the day to have their voices heard, the topic was not raised. The Canadian government has been publicly calling for an end to the 'Frozen Pensions' policy for over four decades and in October last year, a total of 158 Canadian and UK parliamentarians united to urge the Labour Government to redress the situation. Campaigners are urging Prime Minister Carney to leverage this issue ahead of key trade and defence spending negotiations expected between the two countries amid a complex and volatile geopolitical backdrop. The 'End Frozen Pensions' campaign argues: 'Canada fairly adjusts pensions for its citizens living in the UK, but the UK's refusal to enter into a reciprocal agreement not only creates an unjust disparity but also imposes a financial burden on Canadian social services.'


Wales Online
an hour ago
- Wales Online
Water company bosses banned from getting bonuses
Water company bosses banned from getting bonuses Bonuses to six companies are being restricted under a new UK Government law Water bosses from six companies will not be allowed to claim bonuses, as part of a government crackdown. Under new rules, companies are not permitted to pay bonuses to water bosses if there have been poor environmental breaches or customer outcomes. The rules come into force today, and the UK Government say it will mean bosses at Thames Water, Yorkshire Water, Anglian Water, Wessex Water, United Utilities, and Southern Water are not permitted to receive bonuses with immediate effect. It is backdated to apply to any bonuses relating to the financial year from April last year. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here Neither of the companies which operate in Wales, Dwr Cymru or Hafren Dyfrdwy are impacted. While both fall under the legislation, no Welsh companies have been deemed to have breached the new standards to the point at which bonuses can be withheld. Dwr Cymru has faced criticism for spills and issues in Wales. Last month it was fined £1.3m over 800 sewage breaches. You can read that here. Water companies have awarded over £112 million in bonuses and incentives over the last decade and last year alone, £7.6m in bonuses were paid to water bosses in England. Article continues below The companies impacted are: Anglian Water: CEO (chief executive officer) bonus banned Southern Water: CEO and CFO (chief finance officer) bonus banned Thames Water: CEO and CFO bonus banned United Utilities: CEO and CFO bonus banned Wessex Water: CFO bonus banned Yorkshire Water: CEO and CFO bonus banned Anglian Water's CFO is not subject to the ban because they were not in post for the most serious (category one) incident. Wessex Water's CEO is not subject to the ban because they were not in post for the criminal offence that triggers the ban. The new act means companies that do meet Ofwat's standards will still be eligible to pay executives bonuses. While it is for water companies to set their own remuneration, new standards published by Ofwat that come into force today mean bonuses will not be permitted be handed out in specific cases when a water company: Fails to meet core environmental standards and presides over serious pollution offences Fails to meet basic financial resilience standards (e.g. meet minimum credit rating requirements) Fails to meet core consumer standards (e.g. failure to operate and maintain sewage networks) Is convicted of a criminal offence (e.g. criminal convictions for serious environmental failings including illegal spills) Any company failing to meet key standards will automatically lose the right to award bonuses and if a company pays a bonus while banned, Ofwat has the powers under the Water (Special Measures) Act to direct the company to claw back the money. Any company that does not comply with Ofwat's directions will face enforcement action. Environment secretary Steve Reed said: "Water company bosses, like anyone else, should only get bonuses if they've performed well, certainly not if they've failed to tackle water pollution. "Undeserved bonuses will now be banned as part of the Government's plan to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good. Promise made, promise delivered." Article continues below