One oft-proven way to make money is to pick up a few gems among a pile of discarded mining rubble.

In the case of the UK, an investment fund is offering a similar opportunity – this time to pick up some profits from investing in a few companies in the disaster that is the English water industry.

Since its privatisation the industry has avoided investing in infrastructure; pumped pollution on to beaches and into rivers and streams; sucked out huge dividends; and, saddled water companies with huge debts.

Australia’s own Macquarie was a leading exponent of this and wrecked Thames Water leaving heavily polluted beaches, streams and rivers behind it.

The incoming Labour Government has promised to nationalise much of the industry and will no doubt think of some way to claw back some ill-gotten gains. Clawing back any of the latter may be hard, but a creative government might think about various ways to make that possible. Moreover, as some companies are heading into bankruptcy the price will be derisory at best.

Of course, if they do, we will hear shrieks about sovereign risk from industry but that will be overwhelmed by cheers from the public.

The investment company spruiking the opportunities is ClearBridge, part of the Franklin Templeton Investment Corp, which manages US$187.billion in assets globally.

A media release about the ‘opportunity’ was headlined “Political turmoil and environmental issues may represent a buying opportunity for listed UK water utilities: ClearBridge.”

The release said: “Political turmoil in the UK with a snap election and a water regulator ruling set for early July, looks to continue some near-term volatility for the UK listed Water utilities whose spending on the environmental bottom line which is being unduly discounted due to trouble at an unlisted peer.”

ClearBridge Portfolio Manager, Shane Hurst, said: “The volatility could, however, represent a buying opportunity for listed UK water utilities, some of which are taking action to solve freshwater pollution through investments in their 2025-2030 business plans.”

The logic behind this is that a number of companies – such as Pennon, Severn Trent and United Utilities – are proposing a total of 32 billion pounds of investment in improving environmental performance which translates into better earnings and dividends which can then earn attractive allowed returns.

With amazing optimism Hurst said: “Listed water companies have also been weighed down by sentiments related to the temporary nationalisation debate gaining traction for unlisted water utility Thames Water – although it is idiosyncratic and is unduly discounting shares for the sector, further supporting opportunities”.

This assumes that the problem is really Thames Water, and all the good guys should be allowed to get on with reaping rewards for managers and investors. And anyway, when the temporary furore dies down, we can all get on with coining it again.

There are problems with this argument – it is based on the assumption that focussing on Thames Water, which has the highest profile of the polluters, will distract attention so that the public will ignore the many discharges of sewage into streams, rivers and beaches around the country by the many other polluters in the industry.

It also ignores the fact that there is national fury about the situation. While Keir Starmer is no Jeremy Corbyn, he is also no fool and recognises that he needs to be seen to be actually doing something about the problem – even if it is nationalisation.

Admittedly the problem is just one of major issues he will confront from a decaying NHS to a privatised rail system not fit for purpose with unfinished rail plans and complex ticket pricing systems. On top of that there is a housing crisis, a legacy of corruption and the ongoing consequences of Brexit.

A disappointed Australian political party official once said a lost election on a campaign he had worked on was a good one to lose. A colleague responded that it is not good to lose any election.

With Labour’s massive majority and a five year term the problems they have inherited can be blamed on their predecessors for some time yet.

Moreover, despite Mr Hurst’s positive investment outlook the water companies he is spruiking still have some major problems to deal with.

Severn Trent, for instance, has he argues, “strong targets to reduce water quality complaints, external and internal sewer flooding, supply interruptions and leakage. For instance, it targets 16% leakage reduction and 30% reduction in both average number of storm overflow spills and pollution incidents by 2030.”

That’s a big bet that the incoming government will be happy to be told the problems may be fixed before the next election.

United Utilities is also ambitious, promising reducing pollutions by 37%; leakage by 25% and internal sewer flooding by 32% by 2030.

One has to be sceptical of such precise projections over a five year period. But nevertheless, Mr Hirst says: “Environmental issues and political turmoil look set to pressure UK water companies in the near term, but we see winners in the space whose responsible environmental stewardship and spending plans to further remediate pollution should be rewarded by the regular and, before long, by investors as well.”

The water companies have been winners for more than a decade. The public and the new Government will no doubt think it is time they are the winners and the companies and the companies face up to the mess they and previous governments have created.

One wonders though, whether Macquarie is lurking around, working out how they can make more billions from the situation.