As water levels increase throughout the nation, there’s a simultaneous surge in the organized efforts by water company executives to undermine the authority of their regulator, Ofwat, while trying to justify proposed bill hikes of hundreds of pounds annually for their customers.

Water company leaders often seem disconnected from the realities faced by consumers. While many cannot specify the exact amount of a homeowner’s monthly bill, they assert that increased payments are necessary to compensate for the unspecified effects of climate change and to fund the necessary improvements to outdated supply and sewerage systems, which have not seen upgrades since privatization over 35 years ago.

During the cold winter months, amidst the ongoing debates regarding the removal of winter fuel allowances for older citizens, Ofwat is expected to announce household bill increases for the upcoming five years. These increases are predicted to outpace inflation, yet will still fall short of the amounts requested by local water providers.

There are emerging campaigns advocating for a boycott of water bills, fuelled by the understanding that unlike energy companies, water companies cannot legally disconnect households for non-payment. A strategy reminiscent of the poll tax protests in the early ’90s is being considered.

Water executives dismiss these movements as unfounded. They claim bill increases will only average a few hundred pounds annually, justifying the need for funds to combat extreme weather conditions and replace Victorian-era infrastructure. They assert that any blame should be directed toward Ofwat for its regulatory shortcomings.

While there may be some truth to their claims, public sentiment may not align with their perspective. People generally know where to direct their frustration regarding the current water sector troubles. The analogy is clear: just because a criminal can present arguments about homeowners failing to secure their property does not absolve the criminal of their actions.

Accountability in Government

As the new parliamentary term approaches, MPs are prepared to address numerous issues, particularly focusing on the re-elected Labour chairman of the business and trade select committee, Liam Byrne.

Byrne is expected to initiate several inquiries, notably regarding the fallout from the collapse of the construction firm ISG. While the failure of such a company might not typically garner much attention, it echoes the significant 2018 collapse of Carillion.

The current Chancellor gained prominence through her efforts in scrutinizing the management failures during the Carillion crisis. It is uncertain if previous reports, particularly by Rachel Reeves on Carillion, have impacted corporate governance, yet ISG’s downfall raises critical questions about its role with government departments where it was a primary contractor.

Government contractors, particularly in construction, often prioritize the lowest bid over quality, raising concerns. It begs the question of why departments continued contracts with ISG, especially when the company’s precarious situation was known for months. Furthermore, whether ISG’s owner, William Harrison, inherited from a Texan oil fortune, was suitable to run a vital UK contractor remains a contentious issue.

The termination of projects across various sectors—prisons, schools, and community services—likely exceeding budget indicates Reeves’ previous call for better oversight of government contracts has not been heeded.

Royal Mail Takeover Investigation

The select committee may also investigate the recent £3.6 billion acquisition of the Royal Mail group, now known as International Distribution Services, which marked its tenth annual meeting as a privatized entity at Newbury Racecourse.

Daniel Kretinsky’s proposed takeover of Royal Mail is already under scrutiny by ministers. When Royal Mail was initially privatized 11 years ago, the government imposed universal service obligations that have since burdened the company, resulting in a loss of market share to more agile competitors.

Ofcom’s indications that these universal service burdens may be relaxed have been welcomed by Royal Mail, suggesting that Kretinsky’s offer is based on a significantly different operational landscape. Allowing a national asset like Royal Mail to fall under foreign ownership is controversial, particularly if ministers suspect Kretinsky is getting a below-par deal.

The Leapmotor T03: A Disruption in Electric Vehicle Sales?

The introduction of the Leapmotor T03 may be pivotal in revitalizing the electric vehicle market. While concerns arise regarding its Chinese origins and potential security implications, the vehicle’s aesthetic can be likened to a modern interpretation of a Trabant. At a price point of just £15,000, the appeal may far outweigh the downsides.