What does Andy Burnham mean by more ‘public control’ of water and energy? He is too vague
The Manchester mayor is tapping into deep public frustration over the water industry but at some stage he needs to say what he means 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,
The Manchester mayor is tapping into deep public frustration over the water industry but at some stage he needs to say what he means
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?
Continue reading...
Summary aggregated from The Guardian's public RSS feed. The full reporting belongs to The Guardian — please read it on their site.