There 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?
