Water needs to be nationalised

The privatisation of the water industry has been an unmitigated disaster. This particular Thatcherite masterstroke was allegedly about bringing more money in the form of private investment into the water industry. A revived infrastructure serving all needs from investors to consumers. So much for the fantasy. The reality has seen more than 40 years of unscrupulous private investors asset stripping the sector. Investor dividends have been prioritised, whilst debt has piled up. Leaking pipes, building reservoirs and dealing with sewage outfall have all been put at the bottom of the priority list. The result is a water system that is an embarrassment to the country: sewage in the waterways, creaking infrastructure and higher bills. The system has been mismanaged, whilst some greedy people have got very rich at the expense of everyone else. Privatising public utilities has always been a nonsense. It does not bring competition and efficiency but private monopolies with licence to exploit vital public resources. The only way such privatisations would work is if they were so tightly regulated that little profit resulted. Then, those benevolent investors would not put their money in in the first place. Fortunately, things are beginning to change, with tighter regulation of water companies. Directors have been made personally responsible for resulting damage, whilst rewarding failure has been restricted by withholding bonuses. Though, in the longer term these vital public entities need to come back into public ownership. The process is now underway in the rail industry. Faltering water companies, like Thames Water, need to be taken into adminstration on the road to public ownership. No more bailouts or hitting the customer with higher bills. Neither should the model adopted with the banks in the crisis of 2008 be repeated. Then, these institutions were taken into public ownership, but once revived (at public expense) handed back to the privateers to probably do the same thing again. So, there are encouraging signs of change but the privatisation of water has created such chaos across our waterways that it will take time to resolve. The whole infrastructure needs renewal, with building reservoirs and fixing leaks, as well as dealing with sewage outfall all needing to be prioritised. Above all the industry needs to be run for the common good of all, not the benefits of a few.

Ecological succession

The natural landscape all around us is continually changing. It is not a static thing. The thought occurred when thinking back to my childhood in Wanstead Park and on the Flats. In those days (1960s and 70s), there always seemed to be much more grassland around. Areas like around the big mound opposite Northumberland Avenue and the Shoulder of Mutton and Heronry lakes. The areas were almost like pampas. Today, there are some big thickets of brambles, especially around the mound area. Similarly the terrain on the flats has changed a lot. The Epping Forest authorities spend a lot of time cutting back broom and brambles to maintain grasslands. The big changer in all of this was that back in the day cows roamed freely across these areas, eating back brambles etc. Herds of 30 or 40 plus cows would wander around, eating back the vegetation. They did help themselves to the prize plants in some front gardens but that was unusual and a small price to pay for the ecological succession. The cows brought a wonderful intervention that helped many other creatures in the ecological succession. The recent reintroduction of a few longhorn cattle over by the plain area in the park for a few months each year is having a similar small scale effect. The longhorns are due back in September. Nature is a constantly changing thing. A wood is not a wood that will stay the same for ever. The same applies to meadows and fields. Every landscape is a dynamic thing, constantly changing. Landscapes are growing, living breathing things. If the cows are not around or alternative interventions made then the land would turn (or should that be return) to scrub and bramble. All will turn to forest. It is important that as humans we act in partnership with nature, not act to dominate and destroy for the benefit of human beings. Human beings are but one element of the natural world. We need to partner with the other aspects not seek to dominate. An absence of this type of approach is evident in some of the mindless rhetoric we hear about how bats and newts must not be allowed to stop "development." Fortunately, we are seeing more of the partnership approach with things like the rewilding movement. Locally,there are encouraging developments in the park and on the Flats. The floating reed bed put in at the end of last year on the Heronry Lake, opposite the mound. The skylark enclosure on the Flats plus the efforts to develop wildflower meadows. These are all positive things that work in partnership with rather than against nature. This has to be the way to advance in the future - very much together forever.

Tackling inequality will help economic growth

There is much talk about the need for growth in the economy, so the country can pay for vital services like health, social care, education and transport. It is a case of increasing the size of the economy in order that these things can be afforded. Or is it? The big problem of society today is inequality. There can be growth created but at present, the spoils of such success will flow to the few very rich people in society. That is why in a country like America, which had a buoyant economy, with 3 per cent growth, under the previous Biden adminstration, the majority of people did not feel the benefits. The cost of living crisis hit hard, with the mass of people feeling worse off. They did not get the benefit. The result, Donald Trump was returned as President promising to make America great again. Inequality needs to be addressed. The present Labour government has taken some steps to tackle inequality, like raising the minimum wage and improving worker's labour rights. There is talk of scrapping the two child limit for child benefit. But there has been no effort to make those who have the most pay more tax. In the 1970s, tax rates on the rich were much higher. The gap between rich and poor was narrower and people were happier. The polarisation of wealth with a flow from everyone else to the uber rich has been ongoing since 1980. Since 1995, the top 1 per cent have captured. 20 times more of global wealth than the bottom 50 per cent. If the government needs more funds for basic services, tax the rich, don't go for the poorest and most vulnerable in society. The cry goes up the rich will all leave the country but this is largely a myth. Some may go but if they don't want to contribute to the common good, is that a bad thing? There are though plenty of rich people who want to pay more. Patriotic Millionaires UK are one such group. They can see the unsustainability of the present system. So let them pay more. Universal basic income is another thing that would help reduce inequality. If AI has the impact predicted, then a form of universal basic income will become obligatory to keep the economy functioning. So, yes sustainable growth is needed but the fruits of such developments must be spread more evenly. A more equal society is a happier and better functioning place for everyone, including the very rich.