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
Daily Mirror
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Keir Starmer accused of ignoring veterans for a year as Nuked Blood Scandal grows
Keir Starmer has been warned the Nuked Blood Scandal is growing out of control as veterans say he has ignored requests to meet them for a year The Prime Minister has been accused of ignoring the growing Nuked Blood Scandal since coming to office, with more than 50 veterans dying without justice on his watch. More than 2,000 survivors want the truth about a government programme of blood and urine testing of troops while they were being ordered to take part in nuclear weapons trials during the Cold War. The medical data that was gathered is now missing from their personnel files, denying them war pensions, compensation, and the truth about whether radiation left their families with a poisonous genetic legacy of cancers, blood disorders, miscarriages and birth defects. Keir Starmer was invited to meet campaigners and discuss their calls for a public inquiry within days of winning the general election last year, but his correspondence team did not even acknowledge the request. Since then his government has refused to tell Parliament about evidence it has now found of orders for the long-denied blood tests, serving government lawyers have been identified as having misled courts and judges, and his own officials have admitted scientists may have been conducting the experiments without medical supervision. Alan Owen, founder of nuclear veteran campaign group LABRATS, said: "This is the longest and worst scandal in British history. Long-denied allegations of using our own troops in radiation experiments are being proven with a growing pile of evidence, an expensive lawsuit, and a police complaint. But it seems we're not even on his to-do list." He added: "Either the PM is ignoring a problem that really needs his attention before it gets any worse, or someone is keeping this off his desk on purpose. Either way, we hear about another veteran dying every single week. These men have an average age of 87, a host of chronic health conditions, and they deserve better than this." The PM was tackled on the scandal by backbench Labour MP Emma Lewell in his first appearance at the Despatch Box after the election in July last year, and urged to hold an inquiry. Instead he promised her a meeting with Veterans Minister Al Carns. He has twice met with campaigners, but while he has ordered officials to review 1m pages of archive documents, he has refused all requests to say what he has found. The minister has ordered the release of a further 10,000 classified documents, thought to include at least 200,000 pages, but there is no date for their publication. Veteran Brian Unthank, 87, who has had 96 skin cancers, two bouts of bladder cancer and is now dealing with an "unusual" prostate cancer, said: "All I want is for Starmer to stand up, admit they got it wrong, apologise and find a way to sort it. But every promise we've ever had has been broken." Starmer was in Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet in 2019 when he signed off on a manifesto pledge to pay survivors £50,000 compensation, but all mention of nuclear veterans was removed from Labour's latest version. Meanwhile nearly 4.8m people have seen a viral video about Labour's broken promises, with footage of deputy leader Angela Rayner, Defence Secretary John Healey and Armed Forces minister Luke Pollard all demanding, while in Opposition, that the Tories order payouts. The government has expanded the criteria for the nuclear test medal after the Mirror highlighted the story of Operation Bagpipes hero Pete Peters, but so far he is the only veteran to have benefited. The minister has been asked to expand it for hundreds more crews who were ordered to take part in sampling missions through the nuclear tests of other nations, but this week he refused to say when they would receive it. Colin Duncan, who was a RAF sergeant in 543 Squadron when planes were sent through the clouds of French hyrdogen bombs in 1974, is fighting for the medal to be granted to comrades who suffer the same horrific pattern of illnesses. "We thought the minister was considering new criteria, but I'm not surprised to hear he's doing nothing of the sort," said Colin, 86, of Chipping Sodbury. "There must be a couple of thousand veterans the MoD is ignoring." If more veterans qualify for the medal, they may also need to be included in long-term health studies which the government relies on to refuse war pensions, which could alter their findings. No10 was contacted for comment.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Cabinet ministers pressure Keir Starmer to recognise Palestine
It comes as a delayed UN conference on Gaza and recognising Palestine as a state, co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, is set to take place in New York later this month. According to the Guardian, the Prime Minister is understood to have been urged by a number of senior ministers in different cabinet meetings over recent months that the UK should take a leading role in issuing recognition. READ MORE: Gillian Martin: Scotland has clean water, Labour have dirty politics The Labour Government has previously said it plans to formally acknowledge Palestine as part of a peace process, but only in conjunction with other western countries and "at the point of maximum impact", without elaborating on what that means. The Guardian reports "a growing sense of desperation and horror inside the Labour cabinet in recent weeks", particularly on Israel's killing of starving Palestinian civilians and its attacks on humanitarian agencies. One cabinet minister told the paper: 'We say that recognising Palestinian statehood is a really important symbol that you can only do once. But if not now, then when?' And in a Commons intervention on [[Gaza]] on Tuesday, Health Secretary Wes Streeting called for the recognition of [[Palestine]] "while there's still a state of [[Palestine]] left to recognise". He said: "I sincerely hope that the international community can come together, as the foreign secretary has been driving towards, to make sure that we see an end of this war but also that we recognise the state of Palestine while there is a state of Palestine left to recognise.' READ MORE: SNP call on Labour backbenchers to push for end to two-child cap The Labour Government has faced increasing pressure to recognise Palestine as a state by its own MPs, while the SNP have urged ministers to "stop the excuses" and heed the words of European allies. The comments came as French President Emmanuel Macron visited the UK earlier this month, where he said that recognising the state of Palestine was "the only path to peace".
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The Northern city bucking broken Britain's brain drain
'Levelling up' has been part of the political parlance since the Conservatives' 2019 manifesto, spawning an eponymous government department which promised economic prosperity would finally spread further afield than London and the South East, across otherwise flagging parts of the UK. Yet that goal – along with the department's name – appears to have fallen by the wayside, if today's graduates are anything to go by. Six in 10 top academic achievers from outside London leave their hometown by the age of 32, according to figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). The research also highlighted that graduates born in 1997 are 8pc more likely to relocate for work than those born in 1986. Just over a quarter of young workers with the top 5pc of GCSE scores reside in London, despite only half of that number having grown up there. Such movement of the country's most academically gifted workers exacerbates regional division, the report found. Many ambitious young workers find they have little choice but to move to London in order to secure the career they want. This was the case for Kirstie-Anne Woodman, who moved to the capital after graduating with a degree in international relations and politics aged 22. 'I knew that if I wanted to maximise my income and do well in the future, that I needed to come down to London to get a good career, because London is the corporate hotspot,' Woodman, now 26, says. Trying to flourish as a corporate communications consultant in her hometown of Milton Keynes was not an option, she explains – for her, or the vast majority of her cohort from the University of Birmingham. 'By going to a top university you are typically a high-flyer, [and] somewhat ambitious – just by virtue of having gone to that institution,' Woodman says of her reasoning for the move. 'Quite literally all of my friends are here now.' The motivations are simple, with career progression and money chief among them. 'I know that were I still living in Milton Keynes, I would earn significantly less than I do now,' Woodman adds. Xiaowei Xu, who authored the IFS report, says that as this trend spreads, it 'massively reinforces' Britain's geographical inequalities. 'It's a bit of a self-reinforcing cycle, in that we've got these better jobs in London, and therefore London pulls in talent from all across the country,' she says. As a result, 'we have places outside the South East especially suffering from that brain drain,' Xu adds. Companies are looking beyond London There are efforts to buck this trend, as other UK cities look to attract talent of their own. Manchester is successfully pulling in early-career workers from surrounding areas. These workers – unlike those who leave for London – are more likely to return to the locale they grew up in once they reach their early 30s. Manchester is a 'great base' for career-starters, says Paul Marriott, managing director of recruitment service, Hays. '[The city has] emerged as a major hub – particularly in sectors like tech, digital marketing, finance and professional services,' he says. 'The city's strong university presence and vibrant business ecosystem make it a natural choice for companies looking to tap into fresh talent.' Last month, at an event in its £1.7bn innovation district, Manchester positioned itself as the burgeoning capital of the UK's £120m life sciences sector – and businesses across the board appear to have cottoned on to its appeal. After launching its newsroom in Leeds a couple of years ago, Channel 4 is to open offices at Manchester's £150m No 1 St Michael's, while BT has also signed off on a new flagship hub for 2,000 staff. At the end of last year, IBM also confirmed it would be pitching up in the city. Governmental departments have also been on the move away from London. In May, it was announced that thousands of civil service jobs would be relocated across UK towns and cities, requiring more senior and policy roles to be based outside the capital. 'We're certainly seeing a noticeable shift as companies look beyond London to expand their footprint,' says Marriott, with the likes of Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Bristol 'investing heavily in infrastructure, innovation hubs and culture to attract top-tier talent'. From a recruitment standpoint, he says this decentralisation is creating 'exciting opportunities'. It's beneficial for workers, too. 'Professionals now have more access to high-quality opportunities without the financial strain of London living, while employers benefit from a broader, more diverse talent pool,' Marriott says. However, the expansion of cities outside London can compound the issue of young people upping sticks in smaller towns. 'It can mean that other regions – particularly rural or less economically developed areas – can struggle to retain graduates,' Marriott says. Hybrid work, he suggests, may be one way to stave this off, as it allows people to stay local while accessing opportunities on a national or international scale. But the buzz being generated by cities investing big will inevitably reinforce talent silos across the UK. 'The key challenge now is ensuring that regions outside the major cities continue to invest in career pathways and infrastructure to keep talent engaged and rooted,' Marriott adds. 'It's a myth that we're earning bucketloads in London' If well-executed, this investment could lure graduates away from the likes of London, where the financial strain is increasingly being felt. Between the rising cost of living and paltry salaries – in April, a quarter of entry-level jobs requiring a degree paid just above the minimum wage, while in January, the average rent in London was £2,300 per month – corporate life in the capital doesn't always feel lucrative, Woodman says. 'It's a myth that in London we're earning bucketloads. In the grand scheme of things, I still believe I'm underpaid for the city in which I live, but it is better than being in the suburbs.' Xu says that even if figures don't currently look all too promising for graduates moving to the capital, relocating for work does usually pay off. 'At the start of their careers, there's not a huge difference between graduate pay in London and other cities like Oxford and Cambridge. Then, several years into their careers, that gap massively widens,' she explains. 'People at the very top of the distribution of ability are going to have much, much higher incomes. And as a proportion of their incomes, rents will be lower, so they will still see substantial gains to being in London.' Xu believes that while Manchester has increased its ability to draw leavers back, the influx of graduates descending on London – and never returning – is set to continue. 'People are moving to London because there are opportunities, but then there are opportunities because all the talent is in London,' she says. 'It's hard to break out of that cycle.'
