29th September 2026
Andy Burnham is putting a much bigger question on the political agenda than simply how Britain runs its electricity grid.
His proposals point towards greater public control of essential services including energy, water, transport and housing. The argument is that some services are too important to be left entirely to market forces and that government should have a stronger hand in making long-term investment decisions.
But there is another question which is harder to answer.
Can Britain afford it?
The issue is particularly important at a time when governments are already under pressure from rising debt, higher interest costs and demands for more spending on health, defence, local government and social care.
Burnham's proposals do not amount to an immediate programme of nationalisation. One of the clearest examples is his proposal for a publicly owned Great British Grid.
The proposed organisation would sit within Great British Energy and could have access to up to £4 billion from its existing funding allocation. The intention is to accelerate investment in the electricity network, get new renewable projects connected more quickly and help bring down energy costs over the longer term.
That sounds straightforward, but infrastructure on this scale does not produce instant savings.
Britain needs huge investment in electricity generation and transmission as it moves towards a more electrified economy. More electric cars, heat pumps and industrial demand will require a much stronger grid.
That has particular relevance to places such as Caithness.
The far north of Scotland has enormous renewable energy potential, but generating electricity is only part of the story. It also has to be transported to where it is needed. New transmission infrastructure can take years to plan, finance and build.
The question therefore becomes whether greater public involvement can make that process quicker and more efficient, or whether it simply moves more of the financial risk from private companies to taxpayers.
That is the wider issue behind Burnham's proposals.
For decades Britain has relied heavily on private companies to provide essential infrastructure and services, with government regulating them and sometimes providing financial support.
Burnham is arguing for a different balance.
There is a long-running debate about whether essential services should be operated primarily for commercial returns or whether their wider social and economic value should take greater priority.
Water is an obvious example.
A private water company can raise money for investment through borrowing and private capital. But ultimately customers pay through their bills, while the government remains responsible for dealing with failures that become too large for a company to manage.
A publicly controlled system would change who carries the financial risk.
That does not automatically mean that services become cheaper. Government borrowing is still borrowing, and taxpayers ultimately carry the responsibility for public debt.
Nor does private ownership automatically guarantee efficiency.
The real question is what structure produces the necessary investment, at an acceptable cost, while giving the public confidence that essential services are being properly managed.
There is another complication.
Britain is already facing difficult choices over public spending.
The government has major commitments on the NHS, social care, defence, pensions, schools and local government. Councils are dealing with their own financial pressures, while infrastructure requirements continue to grow.
Every pound committed to one major project is therefore a pound which cannot simultaneously be spent somewhere else.
This is why Burnham's proposals raise a much bigger question than whether public ownership is good or bad.
Who pays, who takes the risk and who receives the benefit?
If public investment in the electricity grid allows more renewable generation to connect, reduces delays and eventually lowers energy costs, the wider economy could benefit.
If public ownership of infrastructure requires substantially more borrowing without producing corresponding improvements, the cost eventually falls on taxpayers or customers.
There is also the question of time.
Politicians operate on electoral cycles. Infrastructure operates on decades.
A new transmission line, railway, housing programme or water system may require billions of pounds before the benefits become visible. A government may therefore have to spend money today for benefits that will not become obvious for many years.
That is one reason why the debate about public control should not simply be reduced to public versus private.
Britain already has examples of mixed systems, publicly owned organisations, regulated private companies, government-backed investment and partnerships between the public and private sectors.
The question is which model works best for each particular service.
There is also a Scottish dimension to this debate.
Scotland already has considerable public involvement in infrastructure and essential services, while the Scottish Government has also pursued public ownership in some areas. Yet Scotland faces the same underlying problem as the rest of the UK.
Public ownership does not remove the need to pay the bill.
For Caithness and the wider Highlands, this may be particularly important.
The region has significant potential in renewable energy, electricity transmission, housing and infrastructure. Public investment could potentially help unlock economic opportunities that private investment alone might not deliver.
But local communities also need to know what they receive in return.
If electricity generated in the Highlands helps power homes and businesses across Britain, will the Highlands see enough investment, jobs and infrastructure in return?
That is where the argument becomes much more than an ideological debate about ownership.
It becomes a question about how Britain invests in its future and how the benefits of that investment are distributed.
Andy Burnham is effectively asking whether the state should have a much bigger role in making those decisions.
The difficult part is working out how much that role should cost.
Britain cannot simply spend its way out of every infrastructure problem. But neither can it necessarily rely on existing arrangements to deliver the scale of investment required over the next 20 or 30 years.
The Great British Grid proposal is therefore worth watching closely.
The important test will not be whether it sounds attractive when announced.
It will be whether it delivers faster investment, better infrastructure and lower long-term costs without simply transferring the bill from customers to taxpayers.
That is a much harder promise to deliver.
And it is one which could affect Caithness just as much as the rest of Britain.