I worry that if we as a country are to find a way to prosper again, we all need to be better informed and our public conversation needs to be (and be empowered to be) focused on the real choices we face, that sometimes we have to do some hard things, and that those people we pay through our bills and taxes to do things are accountable for them.
But I really did hope that our state-owned impartial news organisation might be able to do a better job, particularly in an article about the regulator themselves raising what water companies can charge and how much they can invest.
Not only does the story simply say what each camp thinks rather than trying to help us (readers, people, citizens) understand what the truth is:
Many consumers are angry at being asked to pay anything more against a backdrop of interruptions to supply sometimes lasting for days, and rivers, lakes and beaches too polluted to use safely.
But water companies argue that these problems can only be solved by boosting spending to replace pipes, build treatment plants and establish new reservoirs.
But then it goes on to make various arguments in criticism of water companies generally, because as it often seems when BBC News reports something is happening (water companies being told they can raise bills) the only way to provide balance is to find group(s) of people saying it shouldn’t be (they shouldn’t exist, they’re doing a bad job) in order to provide balance.
More context please
There are arguments for nationalising the water sector, to gain “greater public control”, but no mention of either the benefits (that costs of investment capital would go from 8%+ to around 5%, so we could invest more or not raise bills as much) or the risks (water would be back to fighting for investment alongside the NHS, schools, defence and so on, which once gave us the dirtiest beaches in Europe).
There are concerns reported that arrangements are driving reduced water quality, despite water quality having markedly improved since 1990 through a combination of focused investment and EU regulations, but there’s no context that the apparent explosion in sewage overflow numbers is largely a product of monitoring coverage going from 10% to 100% between 2015 and 2023, combined with wetter weather. It is left to the reader to continue to assume – as many are happy to argue – that this is work that should have been done before (and would have been, were it not for dividends). Is that the case, or not? I think we should know, not assume.
But this isn’t a post about whether water companies should be in the private sector or the public sector, it’s an argument that ‘balanced’ reporting from BBC News could lean further into the detail and nuance while maintaining neutrality. I certainly hope I have managed to remain neutral on the argument itself in this post, only showing that there was additional context the BBC News story could easily have included.
Where the water companies sit, how they’re regulated and so on is entirely a political decision that depends on priorities and perspectives.
At least they’re angry
I shouldn’t criticise only BBC News here though. The FT has reported that our new PM Andy Burnham says he’s ‘angry’ about the increase in bills, suggesting that water companies spending more is ‘unnecessary’, criticising Ofwat’s decision and complaining about sewage overflows.
There’s no word on who might have the power to do anything about it.
