The Guardian view on Andy Burnham: grounds to hope for a better Britain | Editorial

Andy Burnham’s first speech as prime minister to a Labour conference was a serious attempt to argue that rebuilding the public realm will be better for the country than shrinking the state. He is right about this. Mr Burnham’s belief in the power of government is welcome, as is his instinct that by spending now on public services he will save money later. Admitting that Brexit “has done more harm than good” before setting out options for a closer relationship with the EU could be the speech’s most consequential sentence. Offering voters a bargain at the next election – give up a little of the annual triple-lock increase in pensions for free personal care for older people – is a gamble.

But Mr Burnham clearly thinks that he will be able to show that enough has improved by then for him to ask voters to let him finish what he has started. The prime minister smartly recast “take back control” as a Labour argument. His pitch was that privatisation removed economic control, emasculating local government removed political control, and Brexit reduced control over immigration. This was deftly done – threading a common idea through housing, water, energy and Europe.

In time these plans will need fleshing out. Letting councils take over empty homes or acquire private rental properties left unsafe by landlords is a good idea. But how and what powers local authorities might get were unanswered in the speech. Similarly, how public ownership for failing water companies might work has yet to be explained. Breaking the link between domestic energy prices and the international gas market will bring down bills, but Mr Burnham could not say when. Perhaps the hardest battle will be over social care. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says his triple-lock changes “will likely generate small savings” in the next parliament but that they would “not be enough to fund universal social care”.

The speech was studded with language about working-class aspiration, postwar mobility and places left behind by Westminster. The most powerful image Mr Burnham chose was that of his grandparents’ house, bought when ordinary wages could buy a home and give the next generation a better start. The house gave his parents stability; he then turned to the care that their generation may need in old age. He made voters think about their own futures. Mr Burnham’s rhetoric is about rebuilding the state that made security and hope possible. Heartfelt and wide-ranging, Mr Burnham’s speech offered something bolder and better than the uncertain zigzagging of recent years.

Skilful delivery saw him shift with ease from the personal to the political. His warning that a nationalist rightwing party could win a majority on a relatively small vote share ought to be taken seriously. And his promise of a manifesto commitment to change the electoral system is long overdue from a Labour prime minister. By announcing a commission to look into proportional representation, Mr Burnham signals goodwill to Liberal Democrat and Green voters whose tactical support may be crucial. His case for public control seeks to win back Labour’s leftwing voters while persuading others tempted by Reform UK that housing, jobs and public services matter too. A budget and cost of living shock will test his promises. But it will be the months ahead that will show whether Mr Burnham can turn his speech into improvements that people can actually see.