Former chancellor George Osborne has accused opponents of new datacentres of holding Britain back, warning that delays could weaken the UK’s control over the physical infrastructure underpinning artificial intelligence. As protests spread across the country, he argued that facilities rejected in British communities will simply be built elsewhere, particularly in the United States.
The intervention from Osborne, now OpenAI’s head of AI for countries, places him at the centre of a widening dispute over the cost, benefits and democratic oversight of the infrastructure required to power increasingly sophisticated AI systems.
Osborne calls for faster datacentre construction
Speaking at the Big Brue festival in Somerset on Sunday, Osborne likened resistance to datacentres to the long-running disputes that have surrounded roads, railway lines and airport runways. OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, appointed him to strengthen its relationships with governments and support the development of datacentres and other essential infrastructure.
“You try and build a datacentre in Britain … I spent my life when I was politician trying to get people to agree to have new roads and railway lines and airport runways, and communities go up in arms – it’s really hard to build a datacentre,” he said.
Osborne said Britain faced a choice between hosting the facilities itself or watching investment flow to Ohio, Georgia and Michigan, where large numbers of datacentres are already being constructed. He framed that decision as a matter of technological sovereignty, although he acknowledged that this concerned control over the physical location of the infrastructure rather than ownership of the technology itself.
“You can either choose to have these datacentres in Ohio and Georgia and Michigan, which is where they’re all being built … we don’t allow these things to be built. They’re going to be built elsewhere, and you know that’s a loss of some sovereign control over the physical location where these things are.”
Protests expose concerns over land, water and local benefits
Demonstrations have taken place in central London and Devon, as well as outside Holyrood, the home of the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh. Campaigners have objected to the appearance of large datacentre complexes, questioned the scale of local employment they will create and argued that land and capital could instead be directed towards affordable housing.
The facilities also require substantial quantities of electricity and water, raising concerns about pressure on local resources and the climate impact of rapidly expanding digital infrastructure. Supporters counter that datacentres are indispensable to Britain’s ambitions in AI and other technology sectors, and that they can bring investment and highly skilled work. For opponents, however, the promised benefits remain too uncertain to justify the immediate environmental and community costs.
Osborne dismissed much of the opposition as “not in my back yard” politics, pointing to the continuing construction boom in the US despite growing political resistance there. That characterisation has not gone unchallenged. Verity Harding, who leads the AI and geopolitics project at Cambridge University’s Bennett School for Public Policy, said datacentres had become a visible focus for much broader unease about the direction of the technology industry.
“The reason everyone hates datacentres has nothing to do with datacentres. It’s the only tangible thing to protest against … [people] just don’t like what’s happening and they don’t feel that anybody’s in control or thinking about the impact of it,” Harding said. She also criticised what she sees as contradictory messaging from technology executives, who alternately warn of extreme risks and promote rapid commercial adoption. “You know, you cannot go out on the one hand and say this [AI] might kill everybody one week and then the next week go and appear at a big sales conference saying that you should integrate it into your business.”
Government fast-tracks facilities as Greens seek a pause
The government has designated AI datacentres as critical national infrastructure, a status intended to accelerate planning and construction. Ministers view the facilities as strategically important at a time when countries are competing to attract investment and secure the computing capacity needed for advanced AI development.
The Green party in England has called for a moratorium on new datacentres, reflecting demands for a fuller assessment of their resource use and local consequences. The disagreement therefore goes beyond individual planning applications. It raises a difficult question for policymakers: how quickly should Britain build infrastructure deemed nationally strategic when affected communities dispute the evidence for its benefits?
Osborne’s position is clear. In his view, excessive caution would not prevent datacentres from being built; it would merely ensure they were built in other countries, leaving Britain dependent on infrastructure and capacity located abroad.
AI chiefs face scrutiny at the UN
The row coincides with the UN general assembly in New York City, where leaders from OpenAI and Anthropic are due to meet world leaders this week. Their presence comes amid intense debate over the possibility of dangerous, superintelligent AI and whether governments can regulate the technology effectively before more powerful systems emerge.
Osborne said the participation of corporate chiefs in discussions involving presidents and prime ministers should be welcomed rather than treated as inherently alarming. “The fact that corporate leaders are sitting down with the presidents and prime ministers of the world in the UN security council I would say actually shouldn’t be alarming. It’s actually reassuring that people are beginning to try and use the kind of institutions of the world to think about how we regulate this new technology.”
Yet access to political leaders also underlines why datacentres have become such a potent symbol. They connect abstract arguments about AI safety and global competition to concrete questions about land use, electricity, water and local consent.
Why it Matters
Britain cannot secure a meaningful role in the AI economy without the infrastructure to support it, but strategic importance does not erase the concerns of communities asked to host vast, resource-intensive developments. The dispute over datacentres will test whether ministers can deliver essential investment while demonstrating environmental responsibility, tangible local benefits and democratic accountability. How they strike that balance may shape not only Britain’s technological sovereignty, but public trust in the AI boom itself.
