The UK’s biggest water supplier has been dealt another blow as the regulator decided to reduce its income.

Thames Water, which supplies 16 million people in England, has been told by the watchdog Ofwat its revenues will be cut by more than £187m.

It comes as the utility struggles under a £17.6bn debt pile and the government has lined up insolvency practitioners for its potential collapse.

Money blog: Nine-year-old set up Christmas tree business to pay for university

Overall, water firms face a sector-wide revenue reduction of nearly £309m as a result of Ofwat’s determination. Thames Water’s £187.1m cut is the largest revenue reduction.

This will take effect from next year and up to 2030 as part of water companies’ regulator-approved five-year spending and investment plans.

The downward revenue revision has been made as Ofwat believes the companies will perform better than first thought and therefore require less money.

Better financial performance is ultimately good news for customers.

The change published on Wednesday is a technical update; the initial revenue projections published in December 2024 were based on projected financial performance but after financial results were published in the summer and Ofwat was able to apply these figures.

Thames Water and industry body Water UK have been contacted for comment.

A huge takeover that would rock the entertainment industry looks imminent, with Netflix and Paramount fighting over Warner Bros Discovery (WBD).

Streaming giant Netflix announced it had agreed a $72bn (£54bn) deal for WBD’s film and TV studios on 5 December, only for Paramount to sweep in with a $108.4bn (£81bn) bid several days later.

The takeover saga isn’t far removed from a Hollywood plot; with multi-billionaires negotiating in boardrooms, politicians on all sides expressing their fears for the public and the US president looming large, expected to play a significant role.

“Whichever way this deal goes, it will certainly be one of the biggest media deals in history. It will shake up the established TV and film norms and will have global implications,” Sky News’ US correspondent Martha Kelner said on the Trump 100 podcast.

So what do we know about the bids, why are they controversial – and how is Donald Trump involved?

Why is Warner Bros up for sale?

WBD’s board first announced it was open to selling or partly selling the company in October after a summer of hushed speculation.

Back in June, WBD announced its plan to split into two companies: one for its TV, film studios, and HBO Max streaming services, and one for the Discovery element of the business, primarily comprising legacy TV channels that air cartoons, news, and sports.

It came amid the cable industry’s continued struggles at the hands of streaming services, and CEO David Zaslav suggested splitting into two companies would give WBD’s brands the “sharper focus and strategic flexibility they need to compete most effectively in today’s evolving media landscape”.

The company’s long-term strategic initiatives have also been stifled by its estimated $35bn of debt. This wasn’t helped by the WarnerMedia and Discovery merger in 2022, which led to it becoming Warner Bros Discovery.

What we know about the bids

The $72bn bid from Netflix is for the first division of the business, which would give it the rights to worldwide hits like the Harry Potter and Game of Thrones franchises – and Warner Bros’ extensive back catalogue of movies.

If the deal were to happen, it would not be finalised until the split is complete, and Discovery Global, including channels like CNN, will not form part of the merger.

Paramount’s $108.4bn offer is what’s known as a hostile bid. This means it went directly to shareholders with a cash offer for the entirety of the company, asking them to reject the deal with Netflix.

This deal would involve rival US news channels CBS and CNN being brought under the same parent company.

Netflix’s cash and stock deal is valued at $27.75 (£20.80) per Warner share, giving it a total enterprise value of $82.7bn (£62bn), including debt.

But Paramount says its deal will pay $30 (£22.50) cash per share, representing $18bn (£13.5bn) more in cash than its rivals are offering.

Paramount claims to have tried several times to bid for WBD through its board, but said it launched the hostile bid after hearing of Netflix’s offer because the board had “never engaged meaningfully”.

Why are politicians and experts concerned?

The US government will have a big say on who ultimately buys WBD, as Paramount and Netflix will likely face the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division, a federal agency which scrutinises business deals to ensure fair competition.

Republicans and Democrats have voiced concerns over the potential monopolisation of streaming and the impact it would have on cinemas if Netflix – already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share – were to take over WBD.

Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren said the deal “would create one massive media giant with control of close to half of the streaming market – threatening to force Americans into higher subscription prices and fewer choices over what and how they watch, while putting American workers at risk”.

Similarly, Representative Pramila Jayapal, who co-chairs the House Monopoly Busters Caucus, called the deal a “nightmare,” adding: “It would mean more price hikes, ads, and cookie-cutter content, less creative control for artists, and lower pay for workers.”

Read more:
Netflix could yet get its way in Trump’s America

Netflix’s business model of prioritising streaming over cinemas has caused consternation in Hollywood.

The screen actors union SAG-AFTRA said the merger “raises many serious questions” for actors, while the Directors Guild of America said it also had “concerns”.

Experts suggest there’s less of a concern with the Paramount deal when it comes to a streaming monopoly, because its Paramount+ service is smaller and has less of an international footprint than Netflix.

How is Trump relevant?

After Netflix announced its bid, the president said of its path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision.”

And while Mr Trump himself will not be directly involved, he appointed those in the DOJ Antitrust Division, and they have the authority to block or challenge takeovers.

However, his potential influence isn’t sitting well with some experts due to his ties with key players on the Paramount side.

Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire (and world’s second-richest man) Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.

Additionally, Affinity Partners, an investment firm run by Mr Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, would be investing in the deal.

Also participating would be funds controlled by the governments of three unnamed Persian Gulf countries, widely reported as Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar – countries the Trump family company has struck deals with this year.

Critics of the Trump’s administration has accused it of being transactional, with the president known to hold grudges over those who are critical of him, however, Mr Trump told reporters on 8 December that he has not spoken with Mr Kushner about WBD, adding that neither Netflix nor Paramount “are friends of mine”.

John Mayo, an antitrust expert at Georgetown University, suggested the scrutiny by the Antitrust Division would be serious whichever offer is approved by shareholders, and that he thinks experts there will keep partisanship out of their decisions despite the politically charged atmosphere.

What happens next?

WBD must now advise shareholders whether Paramount’s offer constitutes a superior offer by 22 December.

If the company decides that Paramount’s offer is superior, Netflix would have the opportunity to match or beat it.

WBD would have to pay Netflix a termination fee of $2.8bn (£2.10bn) if it decides to scrap the deal.

Shareholders have until 8 January 2026 to vote on Paramount’s offer.

Whatever your political bent or economic creed, it is hard to argue that the build up to last month’s budget was anything but hapless.

The prolonged wait for the fiscal event was punctuated by trails and leaks and capped by an unusual scene-setting speech by the chancellor herself, in which she gave a hefty nudge-and-a-wink towards income tax rises, before climbing down days later.

When the moment to deliver finally came, Rachel Reeves was upstaged by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) effectively publishing her budget online, 90 minutes before she stood up in Parliament.

Money latest: Big rise in pension drawdowns

Appearing before the Treasury select committee of MPs – a routine post-budget date for any chancellor – she had her best opportunity yet to explain the apparent chaos. She only partially took it.

Ms Reeves insisted that the leaks were unauthorised and unhelpful, but failed to say explicitly why she dropped income tax rises having intentionally flagged they were coming to plug a hole in the public finances.

We did learn the focus of the leak inquiry is a story published by the Financial Times on 13 November, nine days after her Downing Street speech, which revealed that the income tax changes had been ditched.

It moved markets, pushing the price of UK bonds down, and the price the government pays to service that debt up.

The story, she said, was inaccurate, partial and “very damaging” because it gave the impression that she was abandoning the “core elements” of her strategy, crucially increasing the headroom against her fiscal rules.

What many people took from it was that a key decision had been reversed before it had been taken, adding to pervading uncertainty and a general sense of chaos.

It looked even more curious post-budget when the OBR revealed it had told her before the nudge-and-a-wink speech that the total funding gap was not as wide as first feared.

The chancellor did confirm she had considered breaking a manifesto pledge on income tax and that the final decision was made in tandem with the prime minister “as a team”. “In the end it was not necessary,” she said.

She was more bullish when questions moved from the style to the substance of the budget, defending her blend of backdated tax rises and upfront spending pledges from the charge they do nothing to promote growth.

She was also tempted into making two firm commitments – not to levy capital gains taxes on primary residences or dilute the triple-lock on pensions – underlining the sense that, for this government, budget speculation is now a permanent loop.

Committee chair Dame Meg Hillier concluded by describing her appearance as the “full stop” on the budget process. The chancellor will hope so.