Dieter Helm

The Chancellor tells us that he, too, is committed to a target of reducing regulation, by 25% by 2030,[1] just like his predecessor, and echoing the ambitions of all those who came before them from at least 2010.

As oil prices continue to fluctuate in global markets, Britain’s energy costs have become a distinctly British crisis.

Recent prime ministers have become very good at the politics of the long grass, and Andy Burnham is at risk of following this line.

There are many reasons why nationalising Thames Water would be a bad idea.

It’s very hard to know how close the electricity system recently got to a blackout.

Following on from the latest change of Prime Minister and announcements about his new Cabinet, what is going to change?

Following on from OFWAT’s 55% indicative preferred gearing, signals from DEFRA are that it would like to make this a legally binding upper limit.

Climate policy must be judged not by good intentions, but by its real-world costs, impacts and global effectiveness.

With the renewed political enthusiasm for nationalisation, what, in practical terms, does it mean and what would actually change?

Origins and context The regulated asset base (RAB) was brought in after privatisations.

Politicians have been seeking for decades to put right the infrastructure crisis in this country that is rooted not in a lack of ambition, but in deeper economic and political constraints.

The water industry in England and Wales has been the subject of some awful performance politics.