Andy B’s speech

It's now less than 4 weeks to the Budget, which is where the financial questions will be answered. There is no need to put the cart before the horse. The country needed to know the vision before the fine detail.

This doesn't really feel like a good faith, productive discussion. I wouldn't engage with someone in real life who spoke to me about politics in such a sneering condescending way, so I don't really see the merit in doing so here, either. This was a party conference speech - party conference speeches by the leader just aren't where budget decisions or specific policy details are set out, by any political party. I've seen commentators across the political spectrum talking about it as one of the most substantive conference speeches they've seen in many years - and having watched and been completely turned off by many myself, I agree.

Yes no need to suggest where money will come from to do all the things he says he will. Like devolution which will cost a fortune. And the bottom line is that everything needs paying for. So the speech is just empty vibes.

1986 was the year of the Big Bang, which many think sowed the seeds of the financial collapse of 2008.

Well everyone's got a vision....My vision is living in a huge cream and sponge cake with a massive spoon and unlimited stomach capacity. But whether I can achieve my dream is very much dependant on existing facts such as who would pay for it and is it possible.

I did too. It was in spite of them.

The 1970s were more than 40 years ago. 40 years ago was 1986.

You can to an extent - but not straighforwardly, because so many cuts actually just shift costs elsewhere, in a way that is sometimes even more expensive to the tax payer.

From my perspective, no political party has yet offered a fully thought through, pragmatic solution to the debt crisis. But at least Andy Burnham seems to have a bit of vision - and I do think being prepared to even talk about modifying the triple lock shows he's got political steel.

It’s Burnham anyway pushing the 40 years line.

Well you can at least cut your way to spending less on debt interest. Or spend less on one thing so you can spend it on something else like defence. Rather than spending money you don't have and leaving our children "in hock" (to coin a stupid phrase) to the previous generation's profligacy.

I did too. It was in spite of them.

I think she means that the last 40 years of Thatcher and Major maybe were the problem?

I dont know. Andy B seems to have done very well under Thatcher and Conservative government. Social mobility you see.

I think she means that the last 40 years of Thatcher and Major maybe were the problem?

I dont know. Andy B seems to have done very well under Thatcher and Conservative government. Social mobility you see.

The 1970s were more than 40 years ago. 40 years ago was 1986.

You should mention this to Burnham’s speech writers, who use 40 years ago.

The 1970s were more than 40 years ago. 40 years ago was 1986.

Well you can at least cut your way to spending less on debt interest. Or spend less on one thing so you can spend it on something else like defence. Rather than spending money you don't have and leaving our children "in hock" (to coin a stupid phrase) to the previous generation's profligacy.

It's not that I don't agree, it's that I don't understand the philosophy because he hasn't explained how any of that creates growth. And if most of it is supposed to be taking place after Labour's terms of office, what's the point to it all? You need cross-party consensus that this is what the UK's future will look like, or it's all just words.

The financial position hasn't changed since Starmer left office and Healey has been at pains to reassure the bond markets and business that this budget will be business friendly. So where is the money coming from for the publicly owned electricity grid? Unless it all happens in 2030 when it may not be his problem any more.

I also find it amusing that he talks about the last 40 years being the problem. Erm, has anyone told him what the 1970s were like economically?

I liked the substance but the proof as they say is in the pudding. He will get pushback on everything.

As a pensioner I think he is right to remove the triple lock to help fund social care. We need it to sort out the NHS and do away with ambulances not being able to offload patients and corridor care.

I think closer ties with the EU are needed to grow the economy which is key to everything.

I like the talk about renationalising water and energy. It is time to realise privatisation has failed and only the rich investors have benefitted. The costs are way too high and services are dire. We also need more council houses and no more of this right to buy. If you want to buy a house you do it the way we all had to not getting a massive discount.

Investigating in public infrastructure will require funds, absolutely. I suppose the counter argument is, you can’t cut your way to growth either. I think it’s good that there’s a Prime Minister prepared to have that debate, though.

You cannot spend your way to growth. Each of those things will require a vast outlay in taxpayer funds.

He framed a publicly owned electricity grid, and deeper ties with the EU and shifting power out of the treasury and into the regions as being about growth. I'm sure plenty of people won't agree with that philiospohy - and that's great, its what a battle of political ideas should be about - but I just don't think it's true to say he isn't concerned with, or talking about how to solve, the economic state we're in.

I also don't disagree that much of the speech was about a pitch for the future - but to me that's exciting, I'd much rather have a longer term, bigger thinking kind of politics than the kneejerk populist tinkering of the last few years.