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 do appreciate the concern about delivery - and genuinely share it. But as someone who has been disillusioned about whether any political party has the credible skills to deliver anything for several years, Andy Burnham’s Labour is the first time I’ve thought, “you know what, maybe these guys do”.

On the funding plans - the fact that the Prime Minister has had the courage to come out and talk about adjusting the triple lock gives me faith that all this talk of him being a people pleaser who won’t say anything that people might not like is exactly that - just talk. I think he’ll make difficult choices when he has to, and I think he has the personal charisma to bring his back benchers with him. And TBH what’s the alternative? I think the Conservatives have lost all credibility on the economy - and some of the announcements coming out of this conference haven’t helped. Let’s see what Kemi Badenoch says in her own speech, but this iron dome thing has been a fiasco: they don’t seem at all on top of their figures and it does leave you with the niggling worry that they’ll use anything as a gimmick to score party political points - even national security.

In contrast, I think Andy Burnham’s messaging has been refreshingly free of mudslinging or point scoring. I think he’s a much more unifying figure than any of the other party leaders - with the possible of exception of Ed Davies (but who doesn’t have the same presence or charisma).

I think we are currently in a horrific loop where only the children of the relatively wealthy can be given help by their parents to buy a house and then an inheritance, which then adds the to their own wealth to pass on to their children and wealth accumulates down the generations of the increasingly wealthy.

Meanwhile the children of those who can leave nothing to inherit stay exactly where they were. Getting further left behind with every passing generation.

There is, I believe, an argument for 100% inheritance tax. Not that it could or will ever happen. It's also an easy thing to say when your own will leaves everything to medical research.

I agree. I think inheritance is one of the biggest drivers of wealth and social inequality, disparity of opportunity, and the enemy of meritocracy.
I'd go as far as to say, ideally all personal assets should revert to the state on death.
If this made people spend their money in their lifetime, then great. Wealth hoarding is a problem too.
I know it would never gain support as we have been indoctrinated into the belief that a successful life involves leaving a financial legacy, and people from all classes and wealth brackets want to do this, and it's a democracy, so, so be it.
The best we can do with that is to try and minimise the inequality it causes (which isn't all about fairness, but pragmaticism, as I want a society driven by the most capable people, not those eased into power positions through the advantage of family wealth) and high inheritance tax is a step in the right direction.
(Oddly so was right to buy, which we discussed earlier, though obviously from the other angle, and that didn't work.)

I agree that wealth inequality, property prices, pay gaps and personal circumstances all play a part. And yes it can be much easier to look prudent with an inheritance, a lot of equity, a well-paid secure job and good health behind you. But it doesn't follow that everyone with house and savings had those advantages.

I grew up in real poverty, the kind you rarely see today. I lived in a deprived area, in a series of HMOs and rented accommodation, some truly awful, with eviction threats and hiding from bailiffs. I went to a failing school and had free school meals. I won't inherit anything and I don't have good health. My job is very stressful and, in the current climate like many other people, not especially secure. I am in no illusion about what the job market looks like for people my age. I do have my own home and that does have a decent amount of equity. I don't care about the equity, and would be happy to break even. It was always about having control over the roof over my head and that of my family.

So when I say prudent, I mean exactly that: Being careful with money, saving, and not spending excessively. This is not directed at you but I think those people who think it infers they have not been prudent or use privilege or advantage as a blanket explanation for anyone having savings or a home is using it as a shameless to attempt diminish the struggles of people like me who got there the hard way. So IMO inheritance tax, is a tax on my prudence.

I can actually see both sides of the argument here:
In a meritocratic society where individuals succeed or not based on their own skills, work ethic and merit there is a strong case for a 100% inheritance tax.
Why should an individual succeed in life based on their parents successes from their parents skills, work ethic and merits and not their own.

However if you take human nature into account what drives and motivates many of these parents (especially those who grew up poor) is to ensure that their children and grandchildren have a better life than they did in order to break the cycle of generational poverty.

If you have a high inheritance tax then you remove the incentive for the business owner to keep working, reinvesting and growing her business for her children if a large proportion will be taken away by the state on her death. Instead she will simply get to a level of wealth where she can just stop working and ensure that she spends all her wealth before she dies. This means that business will never grow beyond a certain size and large inter generational businesses will cease to exist, thereby harming economic growth and employment for everyone.

In short inheritance tax is like all left wing socialist policies - they are wonderful in theory (surely sharing wealth and income is much more fair) but in reality it simply doesn't work with human nature.

Yes I agree with you. It will impact her behaviour. As do many taxes.

I wouldn't diminish your struggles or achievements. I came from a similar background though was fortunate enough to have a home. I have improved my circumstances by comparison with my parents, largely through the good fortune of a free education and affordable house prices, plus good health. I have worked reasonably hard, but nowhere near as hard as my parents who had far less to show for it.
So while I agree we shouldn't put everything down to privilege, neither can we make generalisations the other way. Effort and outcome are not the same and the link can be more tenuous than some prefer to think.
I think our different position on IHT comes down to the fact you see it as taxing the benefactor, I see it as taxing the beneficiary. It makes no difference to a deceased person what happens to their wealth after death. They are beyond reward for their prudence. The system rewards people who don't 'deserve' it. Which is tolerable as a neutral act, but smarts a little when the tax payer is asked to plug the gap to enable it.

You say it will make no difference to the benefactor what happens to her wealth after her death because she is deceased.

However a high inheritance tax will make a massive difference to her behaviour before her death if she knows that the state will come in and claim the majority after her death.

Indeed. She will spend it, which is good for the economy.

Spend it, or pass it on as gifts when still living - where again, it is also more likely to keep the economy moving.

I’ve just said precisely that elsewhere! The idea that people should actually spend money seems mysteriously alien to some people.

Your posts are sensible, people are motivated by what they can pass on to their dc, not everyone but it’s a sizeable part of human behaviour for those who take a risk. Taxes need to work with behaviour to get the highest receipts not the opposite.

How will this work with agriculture, when a farmer dies will the state become the owner? The collectivisation of farming led to horrific famines in the last century.
Or would farming families be allowed to pass on their estate, if yes then why not other family businesses. Where is the line drawn and who decides which types of business are exempt?

We are both in agreement that she will spend her money rather than seeing it being swallowed in inheritance tax.

I also agree with you that by spending her money in advance of her death, this will in part be beneficial to the economy. However a significant portion of her spending will be on foreign holidays, foreign cars and other imports from abroad that will benefit those countries economies rather than the UK.

In addition if she reinvested her money into her own business or other investments then in the longer run this would be far more beneficial to the UK economy and UK employment than spending it all before her death.

This why in my opinion behavioural economics (economics + psychology) is much more relevant than pure economics.

However a significant portion of her spending will be on foreign holidays, foreign cars and other imports from abroad that will benefit those countries economies rather than the UK.

Foreign cars and holidays incur tax in this country. As does virtually every non food purchase. 20% to the Treasury of something is better than 100% of nothing.

That's in part why I said 'personal assets' to acknowledge that there are other considerations when it comes to farms and business.
I'm not suggesting that John Smith of Smith and Daughters plumbing services hands in his van and tool box to the state, leaving his Daughters unable to make a living, or that we nationalise agriculture. I think family businesses that provide employment to the next generation would need to be treated differently from passive assets.

So true. It’s not considered by many, even Labour politicians miss it.

I totally understand the "fairness" motive for an inheritance tax - why should someone get a life changing sum of money through no individual merit of their own that goes against a meritocratic social mobility.

The problem is when you try to apply this understandable motive to the real world with actual human nature, it simply doesn't work.

The problem for too many on the left is that they fully support the first part "principle " but either don't want to or are unable to understand the second part of practical implication.

Following your logic, why should the individual who generated the wealth be compelled to disburse it according to the wishes of the state? As you suggest.

Its a slippery slope towards us all aspiring to working four day weeks for the LA…

That's the point faced with the prospect of handling over a large portion of your life's wealth to the state through inheritance tax, human nature is such that most individuals would choose to spend it instead.

Completely agree.

This is really interesting. I’m also really fascinated by behavioural economics. But I don’t agree that it’s a particular blind spot of the left.

On welfare, for example, right-wing policy often assumes human beings are perfectly rational in how they respond to financial carrots and sticks. So, for example, there’s this belief from many on the right wing that if you make welfare more punitive and harder to get, people will automatically shift toward drive and self-reliance. In reality, human psychology under extreme financial stress doesn't react like that. Sanctions and stigma make people less capable of job hunting, not more. So punitive cuts that seem “fair” (because why should we pay for scroungers etc etc) actually end up pushing people deeper into poverty, and end up putting strain on public services in ways which cost the taxpayer more money than the cuts ever saved in the first place.

What I would love to see, is more politicians from all political leanings paying much more attention to behavioural economics and coming up with policy based on real evidence.

Or quitting alltogether

Yes.

Quitting, emigrating, mitigating. Silly Labour.