What does Andy Burnham mean by more ‘public control’ of water and energy? He is too vague

T here ought to be a rule to oblige politicians advocating “stronger public control” of an essential service or sector to say what, precisely, they mean. Public “ownership” is easy to understand – it’s nationalisation. But Andy Burnham, when he cites water and energy as targets for greater public control , seems to imply something else. What? Would he, for instance, torpedo the government’s current plans for water, notably the “once-in-a-generation” reset of regulation in England and Wales via the clean water bill due in the autumn? Or is he merely saying Thames Water should be tipped into special administration, which may happen anyway without a shove from a new prime minister? In energy-land, virtually nothing happens already without a command from above. The national energy system operator was nationalised in 2024. The body is in charge of planning the gas and electricity networks and is drawing up a “strategic spatial energy plan” that will dictate what infrastructure gets built and where until 2050. Nobody constructs a nuclear power station, or even a wind or solar farm, on a whim – they get state-backed price contracts. The Treasury can choose which energy levies go on bills and which are funded by general taxation. Meanwhile, Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, established a unit literally called “Mission Control” to oversee his 2030 clean power plan. …