The Labour Party conference gets underway in Liverpool today, with Andy Burnham giving his big sit-down interview to Laura Kuenssberg of the BBC. The key exchange focused on social care: a topic about which the Prime Minister has spoken constantly in recent weeks. His father, Roy, died a fortnight ago, suffering from Alzheimer’s, and Burnham spoke with feeling about his own family’s personal struggles with care. His criticisms of the existing system will strike a chord with many. ‘Social cost in England is as unfair as healthcare cost in America,’ he said. ‘There is a cost, people are paying care charges now.’
The Prime Minister seems to have a clear sense of what he believes is the promised land
Few would defend the existing system as either functional or fair. But the question is how does one fix it? Burnham’s line is that he will be setting out the ‘vision’ in his conference speech on Tuesday, with Louise Casey providing the ‘how’. He peppered his answers with various anti-establishment jibes, railing against ‘the political world’ and the ‘political class’ for whom carers ‘must feel invisible.’ Such rhetoric can be a useful tool in a Prime Minister’s armoury: Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s often talked of ‘the government’ as though she were somehow removed. But Burnham’s insistence that ‘it’s for Louise Casey’ to decide answers smacked at times of Keir Starmer’s preference for hiding behind procedure.
The Prime Minister gave Kuenssberg a preview of what is to come on Tuesday. He suggested he wants a care system based on the same principles as the NHS: universal, free at the point of use and funded from general taxation. He noted that this is the case in Scotland, arguing ‘I don’t think it’s right that people in England don’t get the same.’ Kuenssberg put the figure of £18bn a year to him. ‘It’s not that high,’ Burnham insisted, but acknowledged that the tax commitments in Labour’s 2024 manifesto mean a plan will have to be set out in the next manifesto. Given the next election is not due until 2029, is it really feasible for him to go two-and-a-half years talking up social care while delaying its reform?
On other subjects, Burnham seemed happier to simply deflect. Kuenssberg, manfully, tried five times to ask about Heathrow expansion, amid reports it is set to be delayed until 2039. Burnham demurred, arguing, implausibly, that it was ‘a decision for London’ – despite it requiring a parliamentary vote. He then insisted he did not ‘want to jump straight into it’ – despite a third runway having been mooted as early as 1946. Having effectively killed Rachel Reeves’ plan, he had little in the way of retort to Peter Kyle, the ex-Science Secretary who claims that Burnham has no growth agenda. On welfare reform, he was unconvincing. ‘I don’t want to see people in their twenties stuck on benefits,’ he said, before arguing that there cannot be ‘crude cuts’. He was left trotting out platitudes about fixing ‘the damage of the Liz Truss mini-Budget’ – a line which gets more redundant with every passing year.
For her final question, Kuenssberg tried to get to the heart of Burnham’s motives. She quoted a figure in government suggesting that he ‘loved’ being Prime Minister. At this, the Makerfield MP smiled. ‘Well yes, it’s obviously hard,’ he said, ‘But I love it for the fact that you can do something to help people… I want the job because of what I can do with the job. And people won’t be in any doubt about what I am trying to do. They will be really clear about it. It’s up to them, then, whether they agree with what I am trying to do. But they’ll see on Tuesday.’
Ten weeks into office, we have heard much from Burnham and his cheerleaders about what George Bush Sr. called ‘the vision thing’, the Britain he wants to build under his new ‘Ten Year Plan’. The Prime Minister seems to have a clear sense of what he believes is the promised land: even if, at this stage, it seems to be more a land of promises. The question which the country and the whole Labour Party now want answered is: how exactly does he intend to get there?
Comments