The question though is, is it worth it?

There’s been much shouting about how Britain’s rivers should be cleaner. Which is slightly odd, given they’re currently cleaner than they have been for a millennium or so. But if that’s what the people want then, of course, that’s what the people should get. Good and hard.

The thing is, this is going to cost:

Households face a jump of up to 20pc in their water bills after Thames Water agreed a major investment deal to prevent sewage leaking into seas and rivers.

Thames Water said its owners have backed a plan to spend an extra £2bn between now and the end of 2025.

This price rise is not, however much people will shout that it is, a function of the structure or ownership of the water system. It’s a simple truth. If more must be spent reducing storm overflow then someone, somewhere, must pay that extra cost. The people who will do that being the producers of the ordure that no longer flows into the rivers. This is true whether it’s paid in the function of taxpayers, water consumers, sewage producers or any other combination we might think up. There’s only us, the population, to pay the bills. If the costs are higher then so will the bills be.

The big question therefore becomes whether it’s worth it? Is the benefit of some few thousands swimming in rivers rather than council pools worth a 20% rise in water bills for all?

No, we do not insist either way, that’s an open question to which all may have their own answer. We do though think that if the question were actually posed - properly and openly, as above - that the answer from the general population would be that the lido is good enough and we’ll keep the money, thanks very much.

Or, as we might put it, folk will say they want all sorts of things but they only really want what they’re willing to pay for.