Share this post:

The crisis at Thames Water has become a political litmus test for the Labour Party – and the results are not good.

It confirms beyond doubt that Labour under Keir Starmer is an avowedly right-wing party.

Economically and politically, it stands alongside the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, and Reform UK in defending privatisation, even when that model has collapsed in plain sight – as in the case of Thames Water.

If it looks right-wing, acts right-wing, and governs right-wing, it is right-wing.

A monopoly in meltdown

Thames Water — the largest water company in England, serving 16 million people — is on the brink of insolvency.

Its debt burden is staggering: £17.7 billion in March, ballooning to £23 billion within months, alongside regulatory gearing of 84.4 per cent*.

Years of chronic underinvestment have left pipes, treatment plants, and reservoirs crumbling. Victorian-era sewage systems overflow into rivers and bathing waters.

The Environment Agency reports that in 2024, serious pollution incidents in England jumped by 60 per cent, with Thames Water responsible for almost half of them — 33 out of 75.

These were not acts of God or unpredictable market shocks. They are the direct result of the privatised model introduced in 1989: profit extraction prioritised over infrastructure renewal, shareholder dividends paid out while debts mounted, and regulators too timid — or too compromised — to intervene decisively.

In the past year alone, Thames Water has:

• Asked Ofwat to write off more than £1 billion in fines for failing to invest in stopping sewage spills.

• Seen private equity giant KKR pull out of a proposed rescue deal.

• Been banned from paying performance-related bonuses to senior executives after poor performance.

• Requested massive fresh injections of private capital to remain solvent — which investors have so far been reluctant to provide.

Special Administration: Nationalisation in all but name – with caveats

The government has now appointed insolvency advisers, FTI Consulting, to prepare for a Special Administration Regime (SAR).

This would be a temporary, court-approved public takeover to keep water flowing while the company is stabilised. The estimated cost would be £4 billion upfront — potentially recoverable through higher customer bills later — but the real figure could be far higher if infrastructure repairs are included.

This is the logical point where a genuinely left-wing party would say: “Enough. A vital monopoly utility in systemic failure belongs in public hands, run for the public good, with investment decisions guided by infrastructure needs rather than dividend timetables.”

That is not Labour’s position.

Labour’s stance: Defend privatisation, but change the rules

Environment Secretary Steve Reed has been clear: Labour will not nationalise Thames Water, even partially.

Instead, it will “regulate harder” — promising more criminal investigations, bigger fines, and blocking executive bonuses.

Reed claims the government is delivering “the biggest investment in the water sector’s history — funded by the private sector rather than taxpayers”.

The message is that tougher rules will force private owners to clean up their act.

But history says otherwise.

Since privatisation, Ofwat has repeatedly imposed fines and restrictions — yet the underlying incentives of the privatised water companies haven’t changed.

Private investors structure utilities to maximise debt-financed returns; environmental compliance and infrastructure renewal remain secondary priorities, as long as fines are smaller than the cost of real upgrades.

The result is predictable: more pollution, more debt, more political hand-wringing — until the next crisis.

The far-right has outflanked Labour on the left — at least rhetorically

We’ve established that Labour has abandoned the pro-nationalisation ground. Into this vacuum steps Reform UK.

Its manifesto calls for 50 per cent public ownership of each utility — a hybrid “public-private partnership” designed, according to Nigel Farage, to bring in “new people” and unlock investment.

Farage insists the cost could be far lower than the £50 billion figure cited for a 50 per cent stake, and says bondholders and shareholders of failing companies should be allowed to go bust.

Make no mistake: this is not a socialist programme.

It is still structured to keep private investors in control, and the practicalities — valuation, negotiations, investor appetite — are all untested.

But politically, the optics are extraordinary.

A far-right nationalist party is making more noise about bringing failed utilities into public hands than the party that still runs on the ‘Labour’ name.

Why Labour won’t touch it

Labour’s refusal to nationalise Thames Water is not a mystery — it’s political risk avoidance. Taking ownership now would mean:

• Absorbing a multi-billion-pound debt pile.

• Shouldering the full cost of urgently needed infrastructure renewal.

• Being publicly accountable for service failures, leaks, and pollution for years to come.

It is far safer — politically — to broker a deal with “new” private investors, claim to have fixed the company, and keep liabilities off the public balance sheet.

This approach echoes the flawed Private Finance Initiative (PFI) model introduced under Tony Blair, which prioritized hiding public debt over delivering effective, affordable services.

Just as PFI saddled the public with expensive, long-term financial burdens disguised as off-balance-sheet deals, relying on private capital to rescue Thames Water merely kicks the can down the road.

The same failed financial engineering that has plagued public infrastructure for 35 years threatens to doom the water system again.

This is a strategy designed to protect political capital — not to fix the water system.

The truth the Thames Water crisis reveals

The collapse of Thames Water has stripped away the branding.

On economic policy, Starmer’s Labour is part of the same ideological bloc as the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, and, in extreme cases (not including this, obviously), Reform UK; a right-wing consensus that treats privatised monopoly utilities as sacrosanct, no matter the cost to the public or the environment.

The Thatcherite settlement — that essential services should be owned and run for private profit — remains untouched. The only argument now is over how tightly to leash the owners, and for how long before another crisis forces the same debate again.

And now we see the party that once stood for public ownership of core infrastructure now defending the very system that has delivered spiralling debt, sewage-choked rivers, and hosepipe bans in one of the world’s wettest climates.

Thames Water is a political Rorschach test: Reform UK sees an opportunity to posture as anti-elite. Labour sees a political minefield to tiptoe around while leaving the failed structure intact.

The public gets higher bills, dirtier water, and a government — of whatever colour — unwilling to take ownership in any sense of the word.

If it looks right-wing, acts right-wing, and governs right-wing, it is right-wing. On this issue, Labour is Tory — the logo has changed, the politics haven’t.

*Regulatory gearing is the percentage of a company’s regulatory capital value (RCV) — the value a regulator (in this case, Ofwat) assigns to its infrastructure and assets for price-setting — that is funded by borrowing rather than equity. So 84.4 per cent gearing means most of the company’s value is funded by debt.

Share this post: