The founder of, We Own It, a public ownership campaign group, caused a stir on social media after calling for the continued privatisation of Thames Water.
The discussion centred around whether the special administration regime (SAR) measures the Lib Dems are calling for will go far enough in fixing the problem of unaccountable water companies. As the Canary’s Alex/Rose Cocker has reported:
They [water companies] claim they need money for infrastructure maintenance, but for some strange reason, the infrastructure isn’t maintained. When we don’t pay, they set the bailiffs on us. When they don’t pay, they get a slap on the wrist and an insignificant fine – and they still pay out dividends to the shareholders.
Fines are not enough. Ofwat and the Environmental Agency are not enough. The courts are not enough. Only stripping these companies of their control over our water will end the – very literal – shitshow that is privatisation.
While special administration can have some short-term benefits, it cannot be a sustainable long term strategy. And, this is primarily because only public ownership will ensure that everyone has access to clean and affordable water.
The Canary sat down with We Own It to find out what all the fuss is about.
We Own It: for permanent public ownership of water
In a social media post Cat Hobbs, We Own It’s director, commended a speech by Lib Dem leader Tim Farron. Specifically, Farron was advocating for so-called “new ownership models” for the debt-laden failing water utility:
Absolutely brilliant to see Tim Farron, Lib Dem environment spokesperson calling for Thames Water to have a new ownership model
https://t.co/LiO93kantu
— Cat Hobbs (@CatHobbs) February 14, 2026
Many on X rightly pointed out that this is really just a euphemism for alternative forms of privatisation.
However, Hobbs clarified to comments on X that she wasn’t in fact calling for these “new ownership models”.
The Canary also confirmed with We Own It that it still stands for full nationalisation of the England and Wales water sector.
We Own It’s lead campaigner on water, Sophie Conquest, explained how the group views these as a distraction from achieving full nationalisation of public services.
So just what had Hobbs meant?
Hobbs separately explained to the Canary how her comment was about rewarding politicians:
when they do the right thing. And we criticize them when they do the wrong thing.
In particular, she was applauding Farron’s support for bringing Thames Water into special administration.
The government could do this through a legal mechanism known as the Special Administration Regime (SAR).
Special Administration Regime: a route to nationalising Thames Water?
As We Own It explains, SAR:
will involve a financial restructuring and it will then be transferred to a new owner.
Crucially, it argues that the new owner:
should be a publicly owned and accountable regional water company.
Public ownership-focused think tank Common Wealth has described how the government could use SAR to fully nationalise water companies. Crucially for a start, it has the option of putting it into SAR on poor performance grounds. The government can do this if a company is failing in its statutory duties. This route to SAR is unique to water – other sectors can only apply it for financial insolvency. But as Common Wealth has laid out, on untreated sewage spills, every single water company in England meets this performance threshold.
One of the advantages of SAR is that it gives the government the option to deny shareholders and bondholders any ‘compensation’. Common Wealth explained how shareholders and creditors would have to argue their case in court, but that profiting from pollution would be:
a violation of the “polluter pays” principle.
Reinforcing Common Wealth’s zero compensation plan, Conquest told the Canary:
They’ve run the asset into the ground, they’ve already taken out more than they’ve put in, therefore they should be compensated nothing.
Incompatible ideas on SAR
However, there is one glaring issue with SAR: the risk of re-privatisation.
To a business buddy-buddy Labour government, renationalisation is unsurprisingly, a loaded term. In a factsheet around its 2025 Water (Special Measures) Bill, it went to great length to distance SAR from nationalisation.
This is perhaps its major drawback – that the government essentially views it as a mechanism for re-privatising a failing utility.
In short, SAR wouldn’t be implemented in a vacuum. We Own It wants to use SAR as a “stepping stone” to permanent public ownership. The government views it as a last resort option for transferring ownership into new private hands.
So how is We Own It planning to prevent this?
Permanent public ownership: no guarantee
The short answer is: backbench MPs.
Its current strategy for what comes if/when SAR is in place revolves around a pledge to public ownership campaign. Conquest said:
our focus has been very much using our time now to convince MPs that public ownership is in the best interest of their constituents. And that’s included the cost of living crisis – that has become much more of a priority for MPs. And I think water addresses that. We can cut water bills if we have permanent public ownership. So MP pledges become a big part of that.
The thinking seems to be that a groundswell of parliamentary support would change the government’s position.
Of course, this might not be out of the realm of possibility. For instance, the backbench backlash over disability benefit cuts meant that the government did pause on its plans for Personal Independence Payment (PIP). However, it took the immense work of disabled campaigners to get MPs to oppose the cuts.
Nevertheless, We Own It recognises relying on backbenchers to move a corporate-captured Labour government is a tall order. After all, this is the same cronyist Cabinet continuing to cite renationalisation cost estimates that the water industry itself funded. And Hobbs noted former environment Steve Reed’s connections to the water industry. This of course includes his links to Peter Mandelson – whose consultancy company Global Counsel had lobbied for water corporations.
So far, We Own It’s pledge campaign has drawn support from just 19 MPs. Naturally, this largely comprises Greens, Independents, and left-leaning Labour MPs.
Despite this, Conquest suggested that there are:
potentially MPs who might not be speaking about this issue now, who will feel when Thames Water comes into special administration, that it’s really untenable for this utility around which there’s been so much controversy, so much anger, for that to be reprivatised at the expense of taxpayers.
She pointed to economist professor Dieter Helm’s discussions on the future of Thames Water. Notably, he has also suggested that:
once a Special Administrator is brought in, its backbenchers will push for full renationalisation. Most of them, at least privately, like this option.
An uphill battle
Ultimately though, what it boils down to is that We Own It believes SAR makes “the most sense strategically” to campaign for.
This is because there is precedent. Conquest and Hobbs gave Railtrack – now Network Rail – as an example where a previous UK government (Cameron’s Conservative administration no less) implemented public ownership after SAR.
Nevertheless, any campaign strategy for permanent public ownership will face an incredibly uphill battle with this neoliberal Labour shower.
Featured image via the Canary
From Canary via This RSS Feed.