This 1985 letter to Margaret Thatcher, from the No.10 policy unit, arguing why water should be privatised, is really illuminating because ALL of the arguments are terrible. We can go through them:
margaretthatcher.org/document/234496
1) The first argument is that water authorities were in 'good shape' and don't need restructuring e.g. They would be profitable and quick privatisations. Clearly this is of no actual benefit to consumers and it is notable that it is the first point listed
2) Water companies employ lots of people so 'will make a big contribution to the privatisation programme' - e.g. They would help hit an ideological target the government had set itself
3) Water authorities would be able to invest more if given access to private capital. A superficially attractive idea, except it simply didn't happen. As they chased profits, we now know the opposite in fact happened:
ft.com/content/86ac79…
4) There would somehow be competition between the different regional water companies, even though consumers could not choose between them or switch. This was simply mistaken and there was no reason to think this would ever be the case!
5) We just like stuff being privatised, OK? but seriously, to address the one substantial point here: share ownership rose after privatisations... and then fell off again after larger investors bought up the shares. Most water firms are no longer even listed on the stock market
The author of these arguments to the prime minister? Viscount Christopher Monckton, who went on to be a senior figure in UKIP and ardent climate change denier. Previously worked for the CPS think-tank before being recruited to the No.10 policy unit
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph…
