“Water is essential to life” was the moral centre of this emphatic Yes victory, which drew more than four in five votes on this platform. The winning side treated water as a public necessity rather than an ordinary market, with the argument the floor rated highest insisting that “No private monopoly should profit excessively”.
Yes voters tied that principle to bills, sewage, dividends and neglected infrastructure. Their sharpest practical case was that “the profits made should then be put back into building reservoir & fixing leaks”, while other voices called for gradual renationalisation, tighter public control and protection from foreign ownership.
No voters did not lack a case, but they offered a less settled reply to the question. One of the room’s most-respected No arguments asked, “Government run a company ?”, while another said simply: “Ownership is not the issue; it's regulation.” Their contention was that public management could be costlier and no better run, and that Ofwat’s failures—not private ownership itself—had allowed Thames Water and the wider system to deteriorate.
That left the two sides talking past each other. Yes voters saw a natural monopoly whose social purpose had been displaced by debt, executive pay and shareholder returns; No voters saw an infrastructure problem that would survive a change of title, with one Yes voice nevertheless conceding that “Civil Service cannot run a whelk stall” and calling for competent management rather than ownership alone.
The wider argument is over whether essential infrastructure should be organised around public obligation or private discipline, with regulation the unresolved bridge between them. The floor’s verdict was clear on ownership, but its arguments showed that the harder question is what public control would have to do differently.
29 Opinions
I voted Yes because water is essential to life. Bills rose 26% in 2025/26 and 5.4% in 2026/27. No private monopoly should profit excessively from something everyone needs to survive. Water should be publicly owned, with affordability, investment and service put before profit.
Government run a company ? Think they are bad now. Had a monopoly rail ,phone,gas,etc and still run them down. Unions rubbing hands!
No, everything in public sector is working worse and is more expensive.
Things essential for life should be governed socially. Water should be looked at in the same regard as the fire service.
Ownership is not the issue; it's regulation. OfWat are not up to the job.
No because look how well our nationalised health service is run. We'll be dying of thirst/cholera in months.
Yes yes yes! Sick of hearing how much head guy pays himself and trustees etc. sick of hearing about pollution of our waters, and how costs going up to fix the systems which should have been ongoing throughout the period they were privatised instead of high pay given to board. Then there was Australian company who took all money out of their water company and went back to oz. Then I heard Coca Cola pays £6000 odd to extract millions of litres making them billions of profit!
Yes but. This simplistic & biased question ignores a sobering reality that Civil Service cannot run a whelk stall. Whether it should have been privatised deserves a good argument but particularly addressing the cold fact that where Treasury is involved funds will be denied or misapplied. It needs good private sector management with transparency & obligations that if not performed hurt failing Civil Servants & Treasury. Thatcher had Golden Shares. Labour sold them. Nuff said
Changing ownership won't change the bill for upgrading Victorian sewers. But of course Thames Water should have been better supervised by OfWat. Horse, stable door...
YES There's a clue in the name .... Water is a PUBLIC utility. Yes the public need to pay for it to be delivered to their taps BUT the profits made should then be put back into building reservoir & fixing leaks not filling inventor bank accounts. Nor should water be about loading companies with debt to pay extortionate CEO salaries & dividends to the shareholders