Whatever he said, ovation and adulation were expected for Andy Burnham’s inaugural speech as PM at the Labour Party Conference. Even his political enemies are acknowledging that his speech more than did its job, to invigorate and excite his audience making them believers again in their role to save the UK. He is being congratulated all round: and Trade Unions are uniting behind his vision provided that he quickly delivers what they want for their members: actions not words are required to satisfy the paymasters.
CREDIT THE PM FOR WORDS AT LEAST
He portrays himself as brave, risking as he puts it personal political capital to do what is right. Almost universally independent economists have for some time been stressing the unaffordability of the pensions triple lock; and his commitment to abandon it, preserving a double lock instead, is the first sign of strong leadership and a willingness to face and address inevitable criticism from certain quarters. It is in the country’s interests to abandon the unaffordable.
There are other expenditures in a similar category not yet addressed but this one decision is to be applauded. If this is a taste of realism to come, the hope this PM believes he brings may be justified.It is however regrettable that this commitment is deferred for at least 3 years, on grounds it breaks the 2024 manifesto, at least until after the next election; and the PM clarified after the conference that this is unlikely to affect finances until the late 2030s. Delay and deferral are the hallmark of this Labour Government so far, first under Keir Starmer and now, it seems, possibly Andy Burnham.
It is also creditworthy that he promises to deal with social care for the elderly, which he rightly points out has been widely recognised as a problem needing fixing for many years but put, as he admits by himself as well as others, in the too difficult box. He is to create a National Social Care Service based on NHS principles, free at the point of use. It is important to appreciate that his proposition so far is to deal only with personal care largely at home. This is a limited aspect of care excluding care home accommodation and living costs. He said “everyone contributes and everyone is covered” copying the sound bite of William Beveridge, founder of welfare, “ everyone contributes and everyone receives”. Beveridge assumed all households were working but today they don’t.
But NSCS, like the abandonment of the triple lock, will be a manifesto item for the next election not a current programme of action, and likewise he admits it will be a late 2030s achievement. And the costing of it, and so the financing of it, remain a mystery until there is detail which in turn awaits a report not due until Summer 2027.
Given these unknowns and that implementation is so futuristic, his suggestion that abandoning the triple lock may in part fund the new NSCS is meaningless but a good soundbite.
The other big issue vision is his commitment to electoral reform, but this too will come in the 2030s. There was very little said about big things which matter now.
DID HE STUDY DRAMA AT CAMBRIDGE?
The speech has been hailed for its emotive effects, bringing tears to eyes, like in some evangelical gathering of Christian conversion. Has the Messiah brought rebirth to the acolytes? The use of the well-worn touch of my “working classness” was cringeworthy and stale but lapped up by members. Much worse perhaps was the use of the demise of his father to ignite the passion for social care reform, as his “dad” was referred to countless times. His boast that his dad would have approved his ideas is fine and emotionally stirring for some, but is being governed by his dad ‘s ideas the electorate’s plan for the country? The tear in the eye was presumably genuine. But should that death be used to back up political policy and justify Government priorities? Nearly all people have suffered or will suffer the death of a parent, but is it good practice to parade grief and use it to garner sympathy and so influence opinion on matters unrelated? His grief is nothing special but of course commentators and the public will politely empathise. However, it should not influence decisions.
Are this man’s personal life experiences and preferences going to justify policy? It was extraordinary for example to read in the Times and elsewhere how he so favours the consumption of alcohol on the terraces of football matches. In the same edition of the Times there was a report about the destruction of the SAS by new Labour laws subjecting them to legal action for doing their job: Yet on this vital defence matter, he seems to express no view. Should we expect legislation to free up more violence and abuse at football for the sake of treating the football supporter equally with the supporters of Rugby and Cricket? Has the PM not noticed that at those sports the opposition is applauded rather than the subject of abusive words unprintable here, and that tribal battles are non-existent? And he does not want a third runway at Heathrow for reasons thought to be about Southern bias: will he scupper that?
Otherwise, the speech repeated his commitment to return utilities into public control; more housing and other things announced before. He proudly cited the abolition of VAT on domestic energy, but not the fact that his declared funding by cancelling the digital identity programme does not exist as that programme was never in a budget. How is that funded?
He lit a touch paper by contemplating rejoining the EU but the next day diminished its significance as just one of many options. This was at best careless but perhaps a sound bite to pacify the European lobby generally.
Is it part of his PR strategy to publicise his real views to the wide public arena then later water them down in a low-key way? This might explain why his widely reported support for Manchester City’s owners on one day was also watered down the next day.
This PM is applauded for his ability to, it seems, get the people on his side with his soft words and seeming reasonableness and Tik Tok sound bites. But is the substance there to back it up? Is he play acting better than most? Those who profess to know him and support him admire his genuineness and honesty. Actions not words will tell us, but it is fair now to ask what sort of circus has come to Westminster?
THE BLINDNESS IN THE VISION
There are questions as to his seriousness to govern over the next 3 years, that is actions not words now. How could he not mention the existential war in Ukraine where the UK and Europe’s inability to defend Ukraine from daily murderous bombing displays our inability to defend ourselves? And Russia’s active virtual war on the whole of Europe? Or related defence urgencies? Or the serious dominance of AI? Or how to get economic growth booming in the UK? Or the elephant in the Labour room, welfare and NHS and other funding? These do not yet appear in his vision. While to date most politicians have at least accepted that security of the realm is the priority, he says this cannot be at the expense of social security. Defence barely appears in his vision despite it being the immediate existential issue of the day.
Financial myopia may mean he will have to adapt his priorities, as economic reality dawns. His social care project is he says about a structure like the NHS; indeed, he likens his National Social Care Service in importance as alongside the NHS, and free at the point of delivery. He ignores the reality of the shortcomings of an unaffordable NHS which demands more money every year yet rarely improves the offering. Elderly care is already largely operated privately and offers the ideal opportunity to create a service funded in a true public/private partnership with perhaps insurance at its heart: but he wants to emulate the open cheque book of taxpayer cash for the NHS which many suggest is unsustainable. When the detail is looked at perhaps the blindness will be lifted and new sensible funding options for the new NSCS may point the way to a new alternative financing approach for the NHS, rather than the other way round. But this PM needs to embrace innovation all round rather than try to recreate the old ways his dad would have liked.
William Beveridge’s big giants were “disease, want, squalor, ignorance and idleness” to be tackled in a post war Britain bearing little resemblance to today. Nonetheless, ignorance and idleness especially represent a modern challenge. The problems of today require solutions of the time , learning from past mistakes and other nations, with an open mind not driven ideologically; not based on a worship of the working class and outdated ideas, but based on a thriving economy driven by the private sector. Is it possible this new PM sees himself as the modern Beveridge? If so, he has a long way to go to prove he is more Messiah than showman.
See also: –
Leave a Reply