Lord Redwood is former MP for Wokingham and a former Secretary of State for Wales.

The government has spent its first one year eight months undermining our national security, just in time for a war.

This government of international lawyers, by international lawyers for international lawyers has used its own skewed and incompetent interpretations of human rights, net zero, post-colonial settlements and other international treaties to sell us out and weaken our security. When in doubt they argue the foreigner’s corner.

It has gone for the most extreme version of net zero policy. This makes us more energy dependent on Europe. The high energy prices it induces are leading to  closures of refineries, petrochemical works, fertiliser production, steel blast  furnaces,  and many other energy intensive plants. Our own  oil has to languish in the ground whilst  we pay more for imports that come in on diesel  tankers.  The agricultural policy  makes us ever  more dependent on imported food.

If the government knew our history, they would know that we have always been invaded by continental European enemies .  The Romans from Italy succeeded in 55 BC, the Nordic Vikings in the post Roman occupation,  the French Normans in 1066 and the Netherlands in 1688. The Germans failed twice in the twentieth century, The French failed around 1800, the Spanish failed in 1588.

Our defences have relied on a strong navy and more recently on sea  power buttressed by air power.  The country suffered badly in the two world wars of the last century from submarine attacks on shipping making it difficult to supply food and munitions from abroad. Dig for victory, home shipyards, UK chemicals for explosives and home produced steel for weapons were all crucial to survival. At peak production in 1943 the UK made 26,000 warplanes  in UK factories. We couldn’t make 24 today.

This government is so keen on reducing UK CO 2 output it overlooks the fact that most of its food, energy  and industrial policies increase world CO 2 by making us more import dependent. After years in the Common Agricultural policy which drove  down our home produced food, they  are now giving grant and permits  to wild our farms or get them to move  to solar  panels.  Apparently, we need to shift farms out of farming or tax them to close them down. We currently rely heavily on imports  for steel, chemicals and  weapons.

Who would supply those if our seas were prey to the enemy or if our European suppliers were occupied? We would not be able to outlive a submarine blockade of our trade.

Over the last week against the background of evidence of the evil intent of Iran and its allies, the government has moved to give away powers over Gibraltar and to pay money to Spain on top of the give aways. Gibraltar is our crucial air and naval base in the western Mediterranean where EU/Spanish officials will now have powers over who can enter British territory. The EU will impose laws on Gibraltar. Why do that? Spain has always been out to make life difficult for the UK and wants to take Gibraltar over completely. Spain did not help the UK over the violent illegal seizure of the Falklands and disagrees with US/UK action in the Middle East.

The message of past conflicts is twofold. The UK needs to be able to fight alone, as in 1940. The UK needs to produce enough food at home to feed its people, and to produce enough weapons and materials at home to sustain the fighting.

The wish to give Chagos away with a dowry to an ally of China is madness. Mauritius is a non-nuclear country who will take the freehold of this crucial UK/US base with its nuclear facilities. Mauritius may licence Chinese vessels to fish and eavesdrop in adjacent waters.

The wish to tie more of our weapons procurement into pan European collaboration weakens us gravely. You can only rely on weapons you can make for yourself to designs you control from raw materials you produce.

How can you be an important power with no basic steel industry?  How can you fight a war if you need imported explosives and computer chips? How can you project your power abroad to protect your trade routes and sea lanes if you have lost full control of your main foreign bases?

The UK National Security Council led by the PM is making us ever more dependent on imports. It would take just a few cut submarine cables to plunge parts of UK into power cuts. It would be impossible to expand our fleet and airwing quickly using UK industry. We would not be able to feed ourselves if we suffered a blockade. This is a dangerous world. The UK needs to be better defended. The  UK needs to be more self-reliant. Government needs to reverse its net zero bans, get our fish back, support more food growing, commission more capacity to build ships and weapons, ensure  we have good drone, missile and cyber technology and secure the  intellectual property it needs to back the military.

The recent shocking Ministerial failure to get a single destroyer or aircraft carrier to The Med should force a big re think. We need a UK Iron Dome, we need more naval ships and planes and we need much better value for our tax money.

Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For more information on his work, visit lordashcroft.com

Last month I analysed what my polling revealed about whether and how the Conservatives can “unite the right” in a fragmented political landscape.

Now we look at the other side of the fence.

With debate raging over Britain’s role in the Middle East conflict, Shabana Mahmood’s migration reforms and the implications of the Gorton & Denton by-election, what is the state of the left-of-centre voting coalition under the biggest Labour majority for nearly 30 years? With Reform ahead in the polls, can the left mobilise to keep the right out of office?

In my latest poll we asked people whether they would, in the event of a hung parliament, prefer a coalition between the Conservatives and Reform or a coalition between Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Those who preferred the latter (43 per cent of all voters) were asked whether they would be willing to vote tactically to prevent a Conservative or Reform candidate winning. Nearly nine in ten of them said they would, with no significant difference by current voting intention.

At face value, this augurs well for uniting the left. Assuming that left-leaning voters can always identify the tactical anti-right candidate their own seat (quite a big assumption), 87 per cent would back this candidate. With the combined vote share for Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Greens on 47 per cent, this implies that over 40 per cent of voters would vote tactically for a “left bloc” candidate. By contrast, as we also found, the combined vote share for a Conservative-Reform alliance is in the mid-30s.

But can we take it this face value?

To find out, we asked one further question: whether there were any parties that people would be unwilling to support, even as a tactical vote. Here we begin to see the dents in left-of-centre solidarity. Just over half of Green and Lib Dem supporters, and just under two thirds of Labour supporters, say they would be prepared to vote for any of the others. But a quarter of Lib Dems and three in ten Greens say they wouldn’t vote Labour; a fifth of Greens wouldn’t vote Lib Dem; and almost as many Labour supporters say they wouldn’t vote Green.

The chart below breaks down current Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green voters into three categories:

• Flexibles, who prefer a Labour-Lib Dem-Green coalition and who are willing to vote tactically for any of these parties
• Selectives, who prefer a Labour-Lib Dem-Green coalition but are unwilling to vote for at least one of these parties
• Splitters, who say they would vote for one of these three parties but do not prefer a Labour-Lib Dem-Green coalition (they either prefer a Conservative-Reform coalition, or don’t know which they prefer)

About two-thirds of current Labour voters are Flexibles, compared with about half of Green voters and just over two-fifths of Lib Dem voters. This resistance to tactical voting amongst Lib Dems might seem surprising. In the first place, a significant minority of them do not prefer a left-wing coalition government in the event of a hung parliament (though only 19 per cent of Lib Dem Splitters actually prefer a Tory-Reform coalition). This echoes the dilemma the Lib Dems faced in 2019: neither Jeremy Corbyn nor Boris Johnson were acceptable Prime Ministers to sizeable chunks of their voter base, leading to the ill-fated decision to try positioning Jo Swinson as the next PM rather than a moderating influence in a coalition government. A second factor is that the Lib Dems gained 60 seats from the Conservatives in 2024 on the back of concentrated tactical voting; many of their supporters have already identified the Lib Dems as the tactical vote in their constituency.

Many Green voters resent what they regard as Labour’s move to the centre under Keir Starmer, as well as those who have not forgiven the Lib Dems for entering a coalition with David Cameron. Just 72 per cent of Green voters who prefer a left coalition would consider a tactical vote for Labour; 82 per cent would be prepared to vote Lib Dem. Green Splitters prefer both Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch over Keir Starmer, which may well represent a visceral disapproval of Starmer rather than any positive endorsement.

Labour voters, meanwhile, are the most flexible of the three, as the party found to its cost in Gorton and Denton. While the sample among Scottish respondents is too small to be more than indicative, the same analysis for SNP voters suggests that fewer than one in five are flexible – unsurprising, given the nationalist/unionist divide.

Looking specifically at the willingness to vote Labour, only 37 per cent of voters are prepared to back Labour as either their first choice or as a tactical vote against the Conservatives and/or Reform. If the acid test for tactical voting is in the willingness for people to vote for an unpopular incumbent, this is an unconvincing result. Could this be a manifestation of disappointment with the government which will soften with proximity to the election as voters face a starker choice between left and right?

Our political map shows the position and proximity of various important voter groups, including the dispersed and fragmented parts of a putative coalition of the left. The size of the group is proportional to the size of the group it represents:

Even if these three parties could between them secure a parliamentary majority, maintaining such a coalition government would involve keeping on board very different kinds of voters. A coalition between just Labour and the Lib Dems would cover quite a compact and coherent area of the map. But a coalition of all three parties would mean retaining not only the groups on the left-hand side, but Lib Dems at the “12.30” position and Green voters as far round as “4.30”.

Other questions help to illustrate the problem. Majorities of Labour and Lib Dem voters prioritise growth, jobs and lower energy prices over climate change; a bigger majority of Green voters do the reverse. Labour and Lib Dem voters are much more sceptical about the benefits of immigration than Green voters, and more than twice as likely to say more should be spent on defence at the expense of welfare and benefits.

While there is common ground between the three parties’ supporters, these are more profound differences which would not disappear with a change of Labour leader or a finely crafted campaign message. One of the causes of this government’s travails is that the broad but shallow backing it received in 2024 requires it to maintain support from opposite areas of the political map – a feat which would challenge far more able administrations.

If this is difficult with a parliamentary supermajority, achieving it with a tripartite coalition – which may well have a slender majority or even no majority at all – would be a formidable challenge. Keeping the right out at the next election is the easy part; governing would be another thing altogether.

Full data tables at LordAshcroftPolls.com

The US and Israel’s illegal war on Iran has become a déjà vu moment for Labour members, reminding them of Blair’s unforgivable decision to invade Iraq – while Starmer continues to hum and haw.

Tony Blair was eager to go to war, dismissing the warnings of anti-war voices within his party. Their opposition was drowned out as the invasion went ahead, killing one million people, and marking the opening chapter of America’s forever wars in the Middle East.

That’s not taking into account deaths caused indirectly due to the devastation inflicted across the territories, which is said to have led to the deaths of at least 3.6 million people. This brings the total death toll to approximately 4.5-4.7 million as a result of US military operations.

This time around, the Iran on war, and the UK’s role more specifically, risks splitting the Labour Party

UnHerd recently reported that far more MPs are speaking out against foreign military intervention now than in 2003, when Blair dragged the UK into the geopolitical punch-up over Iraq’s oil. Unlike Blair’s time, they argue that a party now exists to the left of Labour may prove an attractive option for anti-war, socialist MPs tired of Starmer’s duplicity.

‘While only two government MPs defected to the Lib Dems during the Blair years, Starmer could be facing an exodus.’

Will anti-war MPs flee Labour if Britain becomes involved in the Iran conflict? @peterfranklin_ 👇 https://t.co/4zwW6d7CcS

— UnHerd (@unherd) March 1, 2026

Starmer sitting on the fence

UnHerd points out that Starmer has not followed the same path as war-hungry Blair, who has built a dirty career on the suffering of ordinary Iraqis. At least for now, although the pendulum way soon swing, Starmer has sheepishly opted for the middle ground. The outlet raises several questions for which there are no immediate answers:

Did he choose to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with his fellow Anglosphere leaders or did he join Europe in sitting on the fence?

A statement from the leaders of the “E3” — Germany, France and the UK — made his position painfully clear. Friedrich Merz, Emmanuel Macron, and Keir Starmer agree that the Iranian regime is a terrible threat to our security. However, they’re keen to point out “we did not participate in these strikes”.

Starmer and his team have desperately clung to the middle ground — sometimes shimmying to the right, but mostly bending the knee to the party’s right-wing contingent, including allied foreign billionaires. Both actions reflect Starmer’s desperation to extend his political shelf-life and address the party’s legitimacy crisis.

However, as UnHerd points out, even in Blair’s time, there were multiple defections to the Lib Dems. Many found it hard to stomach the desecration of Labour, with Blair eagerly beating the drums of war as the party’s maestro. At the time, the Lib Dems were to the right of Labour, marking a significant ideological shift.

A move to the Green Party, especially after their Gorton and Denton by-election win, must be tempting for disillusioned Labour MPs. It’s already clear that Labour is losing the progressive vote to Polanski’s principled leadership.

Was it only the Labour Party that repeatedly, very belligerently insisted that this was excellent political strategy and that the public would love it? And this was so obviously correct, so clearly undeniable, that only stupid or crazy people would resist https://t.co/7a1618ovo6

— Flying_Rodent (@flying_rodent) March 10, 2026

Meanwhile, Your party MP, Zarah Sultana, has used her platform to oppose imperialism and challenge Starmer’s lapdog approach — kowtowing to Trump.

I asked the Prime Minister how much he enjoys being Donald Trump’s poodle.

He didn’t answer. pic.twitter.com/hzBjAJ1o84

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) March 2, 2026

Advertisement

UnHerd also wrote of Zack Polanski’s ‘unambiguous’ position:

“This is an illegal, unprovoked and brutal attack that shows once again that the USA and Israel are rogue states.”

They also highlighted the cracks forming within the current Labour Party, with possible splintering towards socialist alternatives:

The most immediate concern will be over the 24 MPs of the Socialist Campaign Group. SCG members like Diane Abbott, Richard Burgon and Nadia Whittome have already issued statements that are closer to Polanski’s position than Starmer’s. Some Labour MPs take the polar opposite view. For instance, David Taylor has told certain colleagues to “shut up, Iranians don’t want to hear your hypocritical, idiotic opinions”.

Perhaps the biggest headache, though, is posed by MPs like Emily Thornberry who aren’t on the hard Left, but who believe that America’s actions are “illegal”. There’s now growing pressure on ministers to reveal whether or not Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, has taken the same line in his advice to the Prime Minister.

Only support will be right-wing support

UnHerd underscored the threat facing Keir Starmer and the risk of alienating those on the left by giving in to Trump’s demands. In turn, Starmer would have to turn to the Tories and far-right parties like Reform, Restore, and Advance to rally support for another disastrous war in the Middle East.

The nightmare scenario is that, like Blair before him, he’d have to turn to the Tories for support. Rather than put his colleagues to the test, he’ll keep playing for time. The longer the conflict goes on, the more likely it is he’ll face a crunch decision that could either break the Special Relationship or the Labour Party.

Nevertheless, jumping into war — whether eagerly or reluctantly — would be a death knell for the party’s original mission as a pro-people, working-class party. The rich would watch comfortably from their ivory towers while working people are hurled into combat and sent to die. They would reap the rewards from open access to Iranian oil, sending the country back into the dark ages.

For now, it’s too soon to tell if Starmer will turn his back on America or become Blair-lite.

Featured image via the Canary

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has admitted it knowingly leaves disabled people caught up in Access to Work delays with no support.

Access to Work in tatters

We all know that Access to Work has been ripped to shreds by the Labour government. Whilst eligibility is being silently cut, they’ve also completely lost control of the assessment and reassessment backlog.

As I previously revealed on The Canary, over 66,000 disabled people are still waiting for Access to Work support. Alongside that, 27,297 applications were denied during April to October 2025, representing 33% of claims to date. That’s just 7,000 less than the amount denied in the whole of the financial year ending April 2025.

Whilst there is such a horrific backlog, many will struggle to work and could end up losing work. Surely a department that’s hellbent on forcing disabled people into work will provide some sort of interim financial support, then?

Timms admitting to more DWP failures

Lib Dem MP Dr. Al Pinkerton submitted a a written question to the department regarding the issue.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether interim financial support is available to claimants while an Access to Work decision is under appeal.

As helpful as ever, Minister for Disabled People, Stephen Timms, answered:

The Access to Work Scheme provides grant funding and is not a benefit, so interim financial support is not available through the scheme while an appeal is progressing.

Instead, he, of course, put the responsibility on the employer:

We always encourage customers to speak to their employer about workplace adjustments in the first instance.

DWP ignoring why Access to Work exists

This ignorant answer ignores the fact that Access to Work exists so that disabled people have equal access to work. If an employer has a choice between a non-disabled employee and a disabled one, they would have to shell out more to employ the latter. The choice is obvious.

It also means smaller companies will not be able to employ disabled people, because the cost to do so will be too high for them.

Last month Graeae, a disabled led theatre company, revealed they covered £198,445 in access costs. Just £86,800 of this was able to be reclaimed from Access to Work. The irony in this situation is that the DWP justified cutting their director Jenny Sealey’s support, claiming Graeae weren’t doing enough to support her.

This is convenient for the DWP when their employment schemes, such as the Youth Guarantee, involve allowing multimillion-pound companies to pay disabled people peanuts for low-skilled jobs.

DWP is lying about supporting disabled people into work

This is just another example of how the DWP is continuing to push a narrative of “supporting” disabled people into work, whilst doing sweet fuck all to actually allow them to work.

At this point, the department is actively hindering disabled people from working, then blaming disabled people for not working. But thanks to their disgusting rhetoric working, they know the public will fall for it every time.

Featured image via We are Unlimited

Trump’s illegal and unprovoked attack on Iran is having a massive impact on oil and gas prices.

On 9 March, US president Donald Trump tried convincing the markets that his ‘Israel first’ war was “very complete” and would end “very soon”. The problem, which he does not see, is that you can’t please Israel AND the markets at the same time.

Iran, meanwhile, is intent on placing full blame for the price rises on the US and Israel, and pushing them to the point where they seriously regret waging this war of choice.

There’s no easy way out

Since 28 February, US-Israeli attacks have killed 1,255 people in Iran and injured 12,000. This includes an attack on a school which killed 165 schoolgirls that media investigations say the US was likely responsible for.

The offensive has set in motion a new Israeli invasion of Lebanon, killing around 400 people, including dozens of children.

As one might expect from a country committing genocide since 2023, human rights groups have documented Israel’s use of white phosphorus munitions against residential areas in southern Lebanon this past week.

Trump, meanwhile, has been laughing about unnecessarily attacking an Iranian ship that wasn’t posing a threat.

Hundreds of men murdered on an unarmed ship thousands of miles from
Iran.

Trump: “I said, ‘Why don’t we just capture the ship? He said, ‘It’s more fun to sink them.”

Advertisement

These are war crimes and they laugh like it’s a computer game.
pic.twitter.com/K2jzDf1kEX

— Daniel Lambert (@dlLambo) March 10, 2026

The attacks and attitudes of the US and Israel haven’t just upended the rules of war. Any effort to resume negotiations would be meaningless, as Iran’s foreign minister has said:

The U.S. committed a blatant and desperate crime by attacking a freshwater desalination plant on Qeshm Island. Water supply in 30 villages has been impacted.

Attacking Iran’s infrastructure is a dangerous move with grave consequences. The U.S. set this precedent, not Iran.

Advertisement

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) March 7, 2026

This suggests that Iran wants to ensure an eventual ceasefire doesn’t simply provide more time for the US and Israel prepare for another attack. As author Trita Parsi has insisted, Iran will:

likely demand some significant steps in order to accept a ceasefire… [and] likely require sanctions relief and release of its frozen funds abroad

Trump’s “all over the place” presser appears to have had two key objectives: A) Calm the markets by signalling the conflict may soon be over because it has been so “successful,” and B) Prepare the ground for Trump ending the war through a unilateral declaration of victory.…

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) March 9, 2026

Iran’s position has made it’s position clear – it won’t take instructions or bow to the demands of these aggressors.

🚨 Speaker of Iran’s Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf:

“We are absolutely not seeking a ceasefire. We believe the aggressor must be struck in the mouth so it learns a lesson and never again thinks of attacking our beloved Iran.

The Zionist regime sees its disgraceful… https://t.co/MMf1Us5u0b

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) March 10, 2026

As foreign minister Abbas Araghchi has asserted, there will be a “quagmire” unless there are significant concessions from the US and Israel.

Long prepared for this war, Iran’s Powerful Armed Forces are ensuring that it becomes a quagmire for whomever chooses to pursue it.

We negotiated twice with this U.S. Administration. Both times, we were attacked in the middle of talks. It bears full responsibility for bloodshed. pic.twitter.com/wT1MmOfbUJ

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) March 5, 2026

Catastrophe brews

Araghchi has clarified that Iran is “not preventing” oil tankers from navigating the important Strait of Hormuz, whose traffic the US-Israeli assault has impacted significantly. Iran’s government has just called for waters and territories surrounding the country not to participate in US-Israeli attacks.

Iran also wants diplomatic consequences for the US and Israel in exchange for full movement in the strait:

🚨 BREAKING:
Iran’s IRGC says any Arab or European country that expels Israeli and U.S. ambassadors from will be granted full freedom of passage through the Strait of Hormuz starting tomorrow, according to Iranian state media. https://t.co/2gAKdS4fQ8

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) March 10, 2026

As Trita Parsi suggested, Trump is clearly feeling the heat and trying to calm markets and prepare a path to retreat that doesn’t make him look a total failure. He knows how unpopular his war of choice is, gaining support only playing well with far-right warhawks, including Israeli war criminals.

In the US, only 29% of people support the illegal war. US allies in Gulf dictatorships, meanwhile, are very annoyed because Iran has responded by attacking US assets in their countries. And in the UK, the right-wing Labour government may be dancing to Trump’s tune, but 59% of people oppose his war and 67% are anti-Trump.

Even German chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has supported the US-Israeli war, has said:

Advertisement

there is apparently no common plan for how this war can be brought to a swift and convincing end.

Trump’s strategy isn’t working, and won’t

Trump is clearly a mess. He’s desperate to end the calamitous war of choice as soon as possible – particularly because of the oil chaos. But he also hates losing. So he has been doubling down on his undiplomatic tough talk, which is unlikely to spark any good will in Iran. The US, he insisted, will hit Iran “TWENTY TIMES HARDER” if it:

does anything that stops the flow of Oil within the Strait of Hormuz

He added that the US would:

make it virtually impossible for Iran to ever be built back, as a Nation, again — Death, Fire, and Fury will reign upon them

Considering that the US and Israel are nuclear powers and Iran isn’t, any threat like the above is serious. But further mass destruction in Iran would only spark much greater resistance to Trump’s regime back home.

The more Trump delays in ending the war, meanwhile, the greater the cost will be to the US. And Iran is in no mood to keep costs down or make it easy for him. So he needs to make a decision. What’s more important to him: bringing oil prices down, or serving Israel’s genocidal warmongers? Because he can’t have both.

Featured image via the Canary

In a move that favours corporations over consumers, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has approved price hikes for four water companies. This comes despite a cap set by Ofwat to protect consumers during the cost-of-living crisis. Notably, this decision mirrors past attempts by water companies scrambling to offset costs resulting from their failure to maintain critical infrastructure.

According to the Guardian, five companies appealed to the CMA for approval of additional price hikes. Four appeals by Anglian, Southern, Wessex, and South East Water were granted. However, Northumbrian’s request was denied. Their customers won’t face further increases. In contrast, the companies that succeeded serve a whopping 14.7 million customers. This signals eye watering hikes for millions of billpayers who will bear the brunt.

Infuriating to read the about the huge bill increases allowed. How much longer will water companies be allowed to carry on their destruction of our environment, make huge profits & yet get us to pay for it? #waterpollution @Feargal_Sharkey @EmmaforWycombe https://t.co/EPSPG3w27l

— Dr Paula Owens FRGS (@Primageographer) March 10, 2026

The rising cost of greed

These appeals came after Ofwat allowed companies to hike consumer costs by 36 percent by 2030. However, only 17% of the £2.7bn extra revenue they’ll generate will be spent on repairing “creaking networks of pipes, sewers, and reservoirs.

Instead of cutting obscene bonuses to cover “shortfalls,” they’re boosting profits while allocating a meagre sum to urgently needed repairs. It’s clear these appeals were just a revenue-generating move.

Prioritising profits while punishing consumers is nothing new for our privatised water companies, as Prem Sikka pointed out on X:

Water firms sent bailiffs to tens of thousands of homes for debts under £1,000.

Exorbitant water bills. One-third covers interest & dividend payments

Companies paid over £85bn in dividends, borrowed billions to pay. Sewage dumped in rivers, fines waived.https://t.co/rFpggQIi2g

Advertisement

— Prem Sikka (@premnsikka) March 6, 2026

Bailiffs for consumers, bonuses for bosses

Calls to re-nationalise essential services have long been ignored by Britain’s ruling elite, under Labour and the Tories.

When water company bosses demand higher profits, the CMA grants their requests. This stark imbalance leaves consumers trapped and unable to ‘shop around’. Every hard-earned penny is shaken from them to line the pockets of shareholders and executives.

We recently wrote about the bailiffs sent out to chase underpayments and overdue bills from struggling consumers:

Overall, Yorkshire Water, Southern Water, and South West Water (SWW) made the heaviest use of bailiffs, when the data is adjusted for population. Meanwhile, Wessex Water hasn’t used bailiffs for over a decade.

However, other companies also made massive use of debt collectors on specific years. For example, Severn Trent sent bailiffs out 11,574 times over 2022. Even more egregiously, Southern Water instructed bailiffs a staggering 15,707 times in 2019.

Labour MP John McDonnell highlighted the fact that water companies have broken the law hundreds of times in recent years, with little real backlash. He said that:

“Only five directors of water companies have been prosecuted in the last 30 years. Contrast that with the thousands of mainly poor people the water companies set the bailiffs on each year.

The system is more interested in prosecuting families that are struggling to pay their water bills than the company directors responsible for polluting our rivers and seas while lining their pockets from profiteering at the expense of both their customers and our environment.”

Advertisement

These appeals are about to make things significantly easier for one water company in particular, South East Water, currently facing a hefty £22m fine for supply failures. We’ll be watching closely to see if and when the fine is paid. In related news, the Guardian reported that Pennon Group, which owns South East Water, is likely to face further fines for power outages.

In the end, as these appeals make clear, it’s consumers who foot the bill, while executives find loopholes.

“South East Water fined £22m for repeated supply failures.”

Let’s be clear about this, as has been proven time and time again, fining these companies is nothing but a charade.

These fines rarely if ever get paid, shareholders rarely if ever take money out of their pockets to…

Advertisement

— Feargal Sharkey (@Feargal_Sharkey) March 5, 2026

Punished for the sins of water giants

The Guardian also highlighted growing discontent among the British public over the value for money billpayers are receiving, writing:

The decision could prove a political headache for Emma Reynolds, the environment secretary, after the industry’s ratings hit rock bottom last October amid record levels of sewage spills.

The pollution scandal has returned to the spotlight in recent weeks after the Channel 4 drama Dirty Business told the story of how private companies have been allowed to contaminate Britain’s rivers and waterways.

They also inform that Kirsten Baker – chair of an independent group who approved the increase – attempted to justify the decision:

We’ve rejected most of the bill increases water companies asked for but allowed limited extra funding where that’s genuinely needed, balancing concerns about affordability with the need to secure our water supplies and cut pollution.

A significant part of this extra money reflects market movements since Ofwat’s decision.

However, the Guardian added:

Mike Keil, chief executive of the Consumer Council for Water, said the increases “may be less than what these five water companies wanted but they are still more than what many customers can afford or will consider fair”.

“We’ve seen almost a tripling in complaints brought to us about the affordability of water bills in the past year and further increases will add to the worries of some struggling households,” he said.

Consumers are not a magic money tree

Inequality is now wider than Dickensian Britain levels, and it is undeniable that ordinary people continue to bear the burdens created by the failures of the rich and powerful.

Inequality now surpasses even Dickensian levels, and it’s undeniable ordinary people shouldering the burden – punished for the dirty crimes of corporate offenders.

People are stuck, unable to switch suppliers, a harsh reality for families struggling as costs spiral due to corporate greed. Ofwat is meant to balance the interests of consumer and supplier, but have been bypassed by the CMA, failing the British public.

Featured image via the Canary