To ask if you watched Andy Burnham’s bloody good speech?

[Househunt2026]

As in actually watched it and didn’t just doom scroll the commentary? It was bold and honest and pragmatic and actually made me hopeful that we have someone at the helm with a vision for a better tomorrow who has Britain’s best interests at heart.

The National Care Service is a masterstroke, paid for out of scrapping the triple lock and the very real savings of reducing NHS bills on A&E and hospital beds for elderly who should be in care but have nowhere to go.

Scrapping right to buy and increasing council control of housing, boosting the technical education track for young people, pushing renewables, nuclear and energy sovereignty, public control of key utilities for water to get bills down and reduce pollution, investing in people & getting them back to work, leasehold reform by Christmas and everyone’s energy bill will be reduced by fast tracking decoupling energy prices from global gas pricing and by having no VAT on energy bills by TOMORROW!

You can watch the whole thing here and be directly informed instead of getting your perspective filtered through all the bots and misinformation peddlers online m.youtube.com/watch?v=jyjTT_55Gi0

I just expect the party that’s actually in power to know what they’re spending.

I expect the opposition to know what the figures are that their policies are predicated on.

And I'm trying to have an honest conversation with another person who's politics may differ from my own, but has done me the courtesy of asking, listening and responding. In turn I'm doing them the courtesy of acknowledging when I don't have an answer, rather than trotting out sound bites to defend and attack. I'm so tired of the same one liners on repeat. You could have said all this in your post rather than taking a cheap shot.

All really good questions. Andy Burnham’s conference speech really was the first time in a long time I’ve felt a politician was making me a clear offer, and this is what I think his offer was:

What exactly is Labour going to do?
Expand public control over essential services - including ending the ban on public water ownership. Create a National Care Service where everyone is entitled to personal care, free at the point of use. Launch the Great British Grid to manage energy, introduce a more respected vocational educational pathway which will be better connected to local economies. Bring back Sure Start in the form of family hubs. Give regional leaders more power to make longer term decisions locally.
What outcome are they aiming for?
Less centralisation of fiscal and political power, which will allow regional leaders to make longer terms plans for regeneration and growth. Lower household utility bills and lower energy costs for businesses. reduced youth unemployment through better partnerships between education and employers. A care system that actually functions. A country where people stop feeling like everything is getting worse.
How will they pay for it?
Adjusting the triple lock. Ecomomic growth - driven by their energy policies, by investing in the regions in a way which allows them to grow and by reducing youth unemployment.

Who carries the cost?
To an extent,* *pensioners after 2030 (albeit in a limited way). I don’t think it has been said yet, but I personally am almost sure there’s also going to be increased taxes on wealth, one way or another.
What will it cost elsewhere, financially and structurally?
There’s a definite risk that spending on public services will put pressure on sovereign government borrowing costs - although there’s also a reward, long term, if that investment gets people off benefits, drives growth and improves living standards.
How will we be able to measure success?
GREAT question! I guess by seeing energy costs fall in line with our European neighbours, by a cleaner water system, by lower numbers of NEETS, by less shut down, shuttered up high streets, by more people able to make meaningful choices about the care they receive.
Will they change course if it is not working?
My perception of Andy Burnham is that he has strong core values but that he is a skilful and pragmatic enough politician to adapt when necessary. I do think his personal charisma and popularity will go along way with getting back benchers on side.

Its early days, and I’m very prepared to be disappointed, but for now, what’s clear to me is that currently Labour under Andy Burnham are actually the only party I think I could confidently answer those questions for. I’ll be really intrigued to see if I can do the same for Kemi Badenoch after her speech.

The defence spending delay will be an issue for him.

I think AB has a much better bedside manner, but yes, coming after Starmer, it’s not hard.

I am trying to be cautiously hopeful.

I don't doubt that a deeply personal speech with lots of promises of extra spending and working class is going to be well received.

My question is how will supporters feel when he can't deliver on the promises because there simply isn't the money to do so.

Create a National Care Service where everyone is entitled to personal care, free at the point of use.

People who have no money already get as much as the Local Authority will finance free. So what will change here is that the legatees of people who do have money will get a bigger inheritance.

This is "wealth distribution" away from those who have no inheritance to collect to those who do. It would be money going in completely the wrong direction.

What needs tackling is how much help the LA and NHS will provide, particularly in the care of dementia, where two or three short visits a day simply does not hack it.

As a supporter, I understand that things have to be paid for and that there isn't the money for an instant fix. So I'd hope not to hear promises in the first place about things that couldnt be achieved.
This is why I'm receptive to talk of a ten year plan and will be satisfied to see actions towards an end goal. I will judge on the rationality as i see it of actions, how well they are executed, and progress made rather than losing patience when things don't improve overnight.
To win my continued support, I'd need to believe the actions planned would be likely to work. This is why I have more faith in Burnham's approach that addressing worklessness reduces welfare spend, rather than Badenoch's of cutting welfare to reduce worklessness. The first is more likely to work, whilst the second brings a whole slew of other problems and has been shown not to work.
I'd need to see planned actions actually being taken and I'd need clear communication so I understood the progress made, the reasons for any delays etc.

@Imdunfer (edited as forgot to quote -sorry!)

But at the moment, it’s such a lottery isn’t it? And I personally would prefer the system as a whole have steady money pumped into it, so that standards are lifted across the sector. Obviously there’s plenty of detail to come, but the thing that really appeals to me - and to a lot of centrist voters, I think - about Andy Burnham’s pitch on this is he is in no way pretending there’s an easy solution to a complex problem. The Casey review will put forward recommendations, and the government will have to make pragmatic choices off the back of it - I very much hope with cross party consensus. That’s the kind of policy making I personally want much more of.

The plan to reduce NEETS. I can't get my head around the lunacy of making it 25‰ more expensive to employ an 18 year old over the first 2 years of Labour, and then paying companies like Tesco and Costa to give short spells of work experience to the young people they could have employed if it hadn't been made too expensive to employ them.

Also, we don't have an excess of retail jobs and a load of vacancies, so any young person who gets a permanent job through this scheme is simply going to keep an older person from having a job.

The money this will cost should be going into creating new jobs, not replacing one set of workers with another.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/retailers-target-100000-jobs-for-young-people-as-sector-joins-forces-with-government-in-major-work-experience-drive

I personally want to see the NHS care and LA care budgets combined so that the NHS and Local Authorities stop fighting each other about who is going to pay for what care, and beds stop being blocked by people ready to go home or into a care home who the LA drag their heels over putting a care package together for.

Then we need to provide care on the basis of need. At the moment, an Alzheimer or Parkinson's dementia diagnosis will get you more funded help than a vascular dementia diagnosis when that person's disability from dementia could actually be worse.

But I don't support any move that takes money from people without an inheritance leaves money in the hands of people who do.

I suspect people are going to be disappointed by how little it's going to be possible to change.

Yes that first paragraph shows the nonsense of the Labour approach.

I have no problem with sharing in the cost of care for those who need it, even though I may never need it myself. However I would not be happy at doing that in order to protect inheritance.
I want to contribute in accordance with my means in accordance with need, not to secure someone else's unearned windfall.
I understand the view that it's unfair that whether a person is able to leave a legacy currently depends on an accident of health, but by the time a legacy is left or not, a person is by nature beyond the point where fair matters anymore.
So we are really talking about what is fair to beneficiaries. And given there is no fairness in inheritance anyway, I don't think this should be prioritised at a cost to the tax payer.
I'm not against the 10% on all estates, but would be displeased if this wasn't alongside the current inheritance tax.

That's a logical, sensible and well explained approach. Essentially you understand that there can't be a quick fix, hence needing a 10 year plan. And provided there is progress (even if it is slow and steady) towards that end goal, then Labour (and Andy Burnham) will have your continued support.

That is a viewpoint and attitude that I could wholeheartedly support. My concern though is that the average voter wants immediate results in under two years let alone ten and simply won't have the patience to support Andy Burnham's approach.

Instead preferring the more radical and immediate (albeit completely unworkable) approaches of the Greens and Reform.

Thanks for such a considered, knowledgeable response. I don’t disagree with a lot of what you’re saying. And I do think the fact that alot of people agree on what the fundamental issues in the care system are does give me hope that there could genuinely be a cross party solution to this, off the back of the Casey review, if all the main parties are grown up enough to share the political pain which will inevitably come from finding the right funding mechanism. I do agree real, transformative change is very hard - and I imagine you might be right that lots of people may end up disappointed - but I want politicians to at least try.

Towards the end Keir Starmer's every other word was "Farage".

Andy Burnham is, I agree, a breath of fresh air with his focus on what he intends to do, not on what he intends to block and his avoidance of dissing other politicians.

Thank you. For complete transparency I should state that I am fortunate to be in circumstances where I can afford to wait. I'm older, and relatively secure. I have a home I own, purchased when such things were affordable. I'm in a secure job and I'm fortunate that I have good health. My children are adults and are doing well.

I can however understand that people who are feeling the sharp end of where we are now will not want to wait ten years. And it's easy to see why some are turning to the false coin offered by extremists on both sides of the spectrum, who promise the world, safe in the knowledge they won't ever have to deliver it.
For this reason, I think its important that alongside the plan there is some firefighting and targeted support where its most needed.

Thanks for share your thoughts. My post was long, so no need to apologise.

Where do you think the money should come from to fund these objectives? (Excluding the universal care costs, I am 100% against those)

How do you view Labour's messaging since they came to power? And also that of AB?

Thank you for such a considered response to my long post.

Those are all worthwhile objectives, but I’m still struggling to see evidence that AB or Labour have the skills and a credible funding plan to deliver them.

Can I ask what you think of his messaging, and Labour’s more broadly? Do you feel it brings people together and fairly acknowledges the contributions and concerns of those being asked to pay?

Agree for the first part but not the second.

I truly believe governments (all colours) need to take some responsibility for growing the economy not just continually taxing people who have been prudent. If easy targets aren't as readily available, they might have to address, profit maximising providers, waste, unfunded public sector pensions as well as mandatory pensions and retirement planning.

Agree.

There is no way to know the exact figure either way because the data isn't linked.

To be fair, the same criticism could be levelled at Labour. It is still unclear how they intend to fund much of what they want to do, even though they have already dramatically increased taxes. As they are actually in power, that lack of transparency creates uncertainty for businesses and individuals trying to plan and make financial decisions.

Well as the objectives I've focused on are around welfare and employment, the idea would be that it would pay for itself eventually with a lower welfare spend, so it would be an investment rather than a sunken cost.
But as with any cost, it can only be met immediately via tax or borrowing so i would be supportive of wealth and assets taxes (in preference to income tax) and higher rates of inheritance tax at a lower threshold.
I think Labour's messaging was appalling under Starmer. I never really got any sense of him, what he stood for, or what he'd achieved from his public coms.
Burnham is his polar opposite in this. Who he is and what he stands for are front and centre (whether you see this as genuine or not) and we hear a lot of 'there was this problem, I did this, and now this good thing had happened...' type messaging, in straightforward relatable language.
I like that he wants to work across the house on the long term issues. It's shrewd and pragmatic and sends positive messaging at a time when politics is very toxic. One of the most concerning things for me at present is how much anger there is, how little appetite there seems to be for finding shared ground and how much enthusiasm for tearing chunks out of 'the other side'. I like that he has spoken against this and hope he leads by example.

Inheritance tax doesn't tax the prudent. It taxes their beneficiaries who could just as easily be idle wastrels.
I also think referring to people who have accrued wealth as prudent (which naturally implies those who have not have been imprudent) fails to take account of wealth inequality, property value increases, pay disparities and pesonal circumstances. Its far easier to appear prudent if your life savings have been boosted by an inheritance of your own, huge amounts of equity, a well paid steady job and good health, than if you've been less fortunate.
I agree with you about where we should look to make savings.