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

Key points

• 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.
• 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?