Burnham’s said the ‘essentials of life’ should be run in the public interest
Andy Burnham is talking about bringing water, energy and other utilities back into public control.
Good—but if he wants to break with privatisation, he must not protect those who got rich from it.
Burnham has said that public ownership is an option for Thames Water and that the “essentials of life” should be run in the public interest.
But there is a huge question hanging over this—will Burnham hand billions in compensation to the company shareholders who have already made fortunes from wrecking public services?
Thames Water is already gearing up for a legal challenge if Burnham attempts full nationalisation of Britain’s biggest water company.
Thames Water has accrued immense debt, amounting to around £20 billion. Meanwhile its shareholders have extracted huge profits while working class people faced rising bills, and as rivers were polluted and infrastructure left to rot.
The idea that the public should now pay the same people to take back what should never have been sold is obscene—and should be rejected.
Socialists should demand nationalisation without compensation.
But public ownership must mean more than simply swapping a private boss for a government-appointed one.
Our vision of nationalisation is not based on the state adopting the role of the old bosses. And it shouldn’t be about running state‑owned enterprises according to the logic of profit and loss.
They should be run as public services.
Our vision is for democratic social ownership with workers directly involved.
Under workers’ control, resources could be diverted away from useless and harmful industries and given to maintaining and creating new ways of living.
Workers know how services operate and communities themselves are best placed to know what they need.
Burnham’s proposals for public ownership have not come out of the goodness of his heart. They are a direct response to the failure of privatisation.
But the pressure to compromise with the bosses and pay them off will be enormous.
A real fight over ownership would have to confront the rich—not compensate them.
But the question is not simply who owns the industry. It is who controls it, and whether it is run for profit or people.
We are going to have to fight Andy Burnham over trans+ rights.
Burnham was previously supportive of trans+ rights, backing the Gender Recognition Act in 2019 and defending trans women’s right to use women’s toilets in 2022.
After the 2025 Supreme Court ruling—which redefined gender as “biological sex” only—he started to U-turn.
Burnham now says the EHRC’s transphobic guidance should be introduced “in the fairest and most compassionate way possible”.
It will come into force on 5 August.
Bridget Phillipson remains in her role as women and equalities secretary under Burnham.
She is eager to emphasise compliance with transphobic guidance.
Recently though, in a review into the EHRC guidance, Phillipson slammed the “deeply unpleasant targeting” of trans+ people after the 2025 ruling.
She went on to say, “I would like us to be able to move forward on that basis,” but only because “I don’t want trans people to be constantly on the front pages of newspapers”.
Activists should be prepared to fight for trans+ rights. Trade unionists need to be ready to demand better for their trans+ co‑workers and to defy the guidance.
Union leaders should give confidence to their members by declaring that the union will back anyone who does defy the law.
Taking to the streets can boost people’s confidence—the trans+ pride marches this summer are an opportunity to do that.
Racism first developed as a justification for enslavement
Revolutions can liberate not only humankind, but nature as well
