Andy Burnham’s public ownership agenda is more than campaign rhetoric, according to allies of the Greater Manchester mayor: they describe a decade-long programme to bring water and energy utilities under state control that would sit at the heart of any Burnham government. The scale of what is being proposed would rival the privatisations of the 1980s, run in reverse.
One ally put it plainly: ‘When Andy says he wants the public to have control over “the essentials of life”, we should believe him. He is completely serious.’
Burnham himself has said he wants to see ‘the essentials of life being run primarily for the public interest, not for the private interests.’ The question is whether the numbers behind that vision hold together.
Thames Water Is Where the Andy Burnham Public Ownership Case Begins
The starting point, allies say, is Thames Water. Burnham told the Guardian last week: ‘Public ownership is absolutely an option. I would say for Thames Water, that is what should be done.’
His circle wants the government to push the company into special administration rather than accept a rescue plan from creditors. The Guardian reported in October 2025 that the creditors’ new proposals concede ‘a full return to legal, regulatory and environmental compliance’ would not be achieved until at least the 2035 to 2040 period, meaning sewage levels could breach legal limits in some areas for another decade under their plan.
Those creditors have offered to pay pollution fines and write off more of their loans, while also pressing Ofwat for greater leniency on fines during any compliance transition. Ofwat had already issued Thames Water a record fine of £122.7 million for failures in managing its sewage treatment works. The regulator had also placed the company under special measures in July 2024, subjecting it to heightened oversight.
Burnham’s allies argue the creditors’ deal should be rejected and that the company should pass into public hands via special administration. The government has estimated that route could cost £100bn; some legal experts say it could be achieved far more cheaply if administrators agreed that creditors take little or no compensation. A UK court judgment in February 2025 considered whether a restructuring plan should have been declined on public-interest grounds, concluding that view was not shared by the Secretary of State or Ofwat.
Thames Water’s own position is that Ofwat’s five-year regulatory plan (PR24, covering 2025 to 2030) does not serve the interests of its customers, communities, or the environment, according to Thames Water’s regulatory pages. The row over who bears the cost of rebuilding the network sits at the centre of every proposal, whether private or public.
After Thames Water, Burnham allies envisage a rolling nationalisation: water companies taken over as they fail or as their franchises come up for renewal, over a period of roughly 10 years. The model is the railways, currently being returned to public hands under a plan first designed by Louise Haigh, now Burnham’s campaign manager. The target for water is something closer to Berlin or Paris, where municipal governments hold majority stakes and workers and residents sit on boards.
Energy Networks and the Cost of Living Sweeteners
The energy component of the plan is narrower than the headline suggests. Burnham allies are focused on grid operations (currently run by National Grid) and regional electricity distribution. National Grid Electricity Distribution (NGED), formerly Western Power Distribution, already operates four distribution network operators across South West England, South Wales, the East Midlands, and the West Midlands. Power generation and retail supply would stay in private hands.
Alongside the ownership agenda, some close to Burnham are pushing a cost-of-living package for the opening of any Burnham government: a one-year freeze on private rents, a cap on bus fares, and the removal of green levies from electricity bills, met instead by general taxation. Backers claim the combination would cut inflation by 0.6 percentage points.
The problem is the balance sheet. Burnham has pledged to stick to the government’s existing borrowing rules and not to raise income tax, VAT, or national insurance. He has also floated cuts to employer national insurance contributions and a reduction in business rates for pubs and small businesses. He has already had to row back on compensation for the Waspi women. Defence spending demands will arrive on day one.
Critics argue that writing off up to £1bn in environmental fines to avoid a creditor deal, then absorbing the infrastructure costs of a sector in as poor a state as Thames Water, is fiscally incompatible with those commitments. Burnham’s team dispute the £100bn government estimate. My read is that the dispute over the true cost of special administration is the one number that will make or break this entire agenda before a single pipe is laid.
The Makerfield by-election, expected to consolidate Burnham’s position, is the trigger for moving from vision to policy detail. When that document lands, the government’s £100bn figure will be the first thing his opponents reach for.
