Chris Bowers talked about the lack of a “Yesss” moment at our Conference yesterday.
Well, like buses, if you wait long enough, several come along at once – the problem is that they were in the speech of the leader of another party.
Andy Burnham’s speech yesterday was quite simply one of the best I have ever heard from a UK politician. It had heart and soul and ideas and emotion and mission. I had goosebumps and it’s a long time since a speech has done that to me. I’d have to go back to Obama for that.
A speech that targeted the good emotions, ignited the things that bind us together. You have to give it credit.
I will never, ever join the Labour Party a) because I am a liberal to my core and b) because they, whatever good they do are so authoritarian and centralising and one size fits all that they need a liberal party to stop them when they go too far.
But the job of a liberal party is to help rebuild a culture of togetherness to combat the horrific targeting of marginalised communities we have seen from Reform and its evil twin Restore, the Conservatives and, yes, from the Labour Party when it’s tried to ape Reform in a cowardly quest to get its vote back.
We should broadly welcome Andy Burnham’s clear enthusiasm to get moving on closer relations with Europe, social care, electoral reform, getting utilities into more public ownership. So what has our reaction been:
“Andy Burnham spent years telling the country what he would do if he were in power. Now that he is sitting in Number 10, what we got was a lot of ‘Definitely Maybe’ and a total absence of action today.
“Families struggling with a broken social care system cannot wait until after another election and it can’t be funded from the pockets of our poorest pensioners. Communities blighted by sewage cannot wait yet another decade to finally stop profit trumping morals in our water industry.
“This Prime Minister had a historic opportunity to start to fix our broken voting system and rebuild our relationship with Europe, but everything remains a maybe.
“This looks too much like Starmerism with a veneer of panache.”
It’s all a bit po-faced.
Surely we should be saying that there are things we can work with him on?
Now, it’s not surprising that we are rushing to defend the Pension Triple Lock that was our idea. Over the past decade and a bit it’s worked to restore poorer pensioner’s incomes. And pensioners on fixed incomes have a lot to lose as, for example, energy bills get higher leading to wider inflation.
I get that it’s an important thing for us, but I do think we need to look at whether there is some wriggle room here. Has it done its job? Do we need to look at what Burnham is proposing in more detail and look at what it does to affect older people’s lives in a holistic way?
The right are going to go after Burnham on this big time. Do we really need to be part of that chorus? Using some savings from the triple lock while protecting poorer pensioners does seem like an idea that we should not immediately dismiss. We could perhaps be more nuanced in our comments.
Yet I suspect we will be contributing to the noise with petitions and campaigns and votes against. Let’s be a bit more constructive. Let’s listen to young people as well who feel as though their generation is being forgotten.
Labour do have a problem with this. After the Winter Fuel Payment fiasco, after their last term in Government ended in 2010 with a measly 75p pension increase, this will be used to build a narrative that they hate old people. That is clearly nonsense and we shouldn’t feed that particular beast.
I feel like we should have expressed a lot more enthusiasm for working with Burnham, but saying what we could bring to the table.
We’ve always, in Scotland at least, been very sceptical about the idea of a National Care Service and its one size fits all approach that doesn’t properly take account of the challenges of delivering care across local communities. We can advocate for more local control. Nobody wants anyone at a desk in London or even Manchester dictating how care services should work in rural Devon or Cumbria, for example. There needs to be local accountability in this system and we can push for that.
On Europe, we need to be wildly enthusiastic about rejoining and constantly pushing Labour to go further, but framing the arguments in ways that people who vote for us and who should be voting for us will like.
On electoral reform, we need to go into this with a bias towards STV, a push for as much voter control as possible. Labour is likely to veer towards closed lists but ultimately are we going to vote for any actually proportional system. We do need to make sure that the thresholds favour a true multi party system and don’t make it very difficult for smaller parties to get a toe-hold in Parliament.
We’ve been needing a game-changing, new generation moment to rid ourselves of the toxicity of the past decade and the erosion of the social contract and community spirit of the past half century.
We need to lift our eyes and put ourselves to work to help make this country fairer and to make people feel that some politicians are genuinely on their side. Our democracy depends on it.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Burnham government: the shine dims.
This week, it's the Conservatives who prosper in by-elections
A.E. Housman on books and their authors
The hopes of the world rest on the shoulders of libtards in the midterm elections in the USA
Plaid Cymru bottle council tax reform
Roland
Alex Macfie
David Raw
Nonconformistradical
33 Comments
I very much agree with you, Karen. I know our (and my) attachment to the triple lock, but if there was a means of linking the pension to earnings over a longer period I think we could live with that, and work with Labour. I like more state control of utilities in the public interest and agree that we could push for STV and certainly not the only semi-proportional system we have for the Scottish Parliament. My worry is that we are not concerned enough with the real economic difficulties many face and too much a Tory party lite for the Home Counties. A more radical approach building on what Andy Burnham has announced please.
“We could perhaps be more nuanced in our comments” – absolutely. It is frankly embarrassing how quickly the leader rushed to get out his “po-faced”, tone-deaf response. Why is the default reaction to be the opposite of constructive? The Prime Minister has provided us, rather unexpectedly, with huge opportunities if we only realise how to grasp them.
I expected a kneejerk, broad brush, condemnation of Burnham’s speech (which, by the way, i thought reflected his ‘Hope’ banner) from Badenoch and Farage.. However, why did Ed Davey feel the need to jump on the bandwagon?
Burnham, at PMQ’s, has offered constructive dialogue with Badenoch on the problems, and opportunities, facing the UK; a vain hope as she has trouble even agreeing with herself..
I hoped ( that word again) that this party, at least could try and find common ground with Burnham on ‘Social care’, ‘The Triple Lock’, ‘Electoral Reform’, etc. Instead, Ed did his ‘one man party’ response (like his “Jackdaw”, “Fuel Duty”, etc. comments)..
Sorry, Ed, “Nul Points” on your response..
I must be the odd one out. I didn’t really think much of it at all. Unusually for me, I did quite like Ed Davey’s response. Burnham’s speech wasn’t a touch on Obama’s. The devil is in the detail and this was more a rousing speech aimed at Labour rather than the country, perhaps an attempt to woo over the Green voters they have lost. As for the unionist flag waving, devolved governments in the UK should have the right to self determination if they choose independence.
There was no apology for unpaid family carers who look after loved ones and give up work to do so. I am also hearing that older people will still pay for the accommodation bit of care home temporary or permanent respite under the new NCS. Some even have to sell their own houses to afford it! Though a good idea in practice in principal it’s going to look totally different.
I still support the triple lock but of course much more should be done for younger people on housing and support into employment. It leaves so many unanswered questions how will the closer ties with the EU work without joining the customs union and eventually the single market if we rejoin.
What’s weird is that whilst the ‘Right’ eco-system is going to town on the possible adjustment of the Triple Lock, Badenoch isn’t (that I’ve seen so far). She’s said she thinks the NCS can’t be purely funded by that route and tax rises will follow, but she hasn’t echoed some of her troops. I reckon its her working up to an honest admission that she wants a smaller state. She may want Burnham to remove the Triple Lock as an obstacle for her, whilst fighting him on what to do with the money, but her rhetoric and Davey’s is markedly different. Its Davey that looks like the rightwing tabloids.
And Davey needs to make a public comment at some point about whether the Lib Dems will collaborate in the various consultationory bodies Burnham is scouting out. Sneering about needing action now, and not being clear about what may be – we can’t assume – an invitation to engage in grownup politics (even if we have consulted electoral reform to death with no product so far) is daft.
@ Jason Connor 30th Sep ’26 – 10:26am..
Burnham, at least, asked the questions. .He might not have all the answers but you appear to be ‘discarding the good for the perfect’ (to paraphrase Voltaire)
The same questions have been asked before. I live in a Labour controlled local authority area with a Labour MP so see things very differently. I don’t think discarding the triple lock is a good idea. I know many pensioners in poverty where I live who are struggling to get by. We are in a cost of living crisis, and it’s likely to last with rising energy costs, food prices etc. Policies should benefit those on lower incomes instead of failing to support them when they need help. What’s Voltaire’s view on that?
I think the “triple lock” was needed when it was introduced, but there was always that risk that it would become too much of a burden if wages increased too quickly – which is what is happening. Burnham’s suggestion of a “double lock” linked to inflation and 2.5% seems more reasonable. You also have to take into account that, 16 years on, more people reaching pension age are likely to have personal pensions as a result of Labour’s reforms in the Blair government (the stakeholder pension.)
Otherwise, I too didn’t understand Ed’s response. Was it a knee-jerk one, or something written before the speech which was posted as a scheduled post, with no review or temp check being taken before it? How can we be so negative about a speech which moves Labour significantly towards our positions on electoral reform and Brexit? And why aren’t we encouraging Burnham instead to be bolder, rather than take the negative tone?
Ed Davie had a very small window of opportunity to say something Liberal & he blew it, damaging Our Party & making quite sure that Young Voters will decide that we have nothing to say
Yesterday I signed a Petition calling on All Politicians to avoid point scoring on The proposals for a National Care Service, they (38 degrees) were anticipating just the sort of response Our Leader made.
Whatever we think about The Triple Lock it was always meant to be temporary, some one would have had to end it sometime.
Excellent article, Caron. We urgently need a complementary grand vision which is shouted from the rooftops across the UK. The time for social care, PR and joining the EU has come. Liberal Democrats must prominently get behind these causes which we have long advocated.
Absolutely right, Caron. That was a splendid speech, and we should surely be offering support in many fields to the Prime Minister’s fine intentions. What is apparently Ed’s response is disappointing. As for the Triple Lock, as a pensioner I have thought myself it could be reduced to two substantial offerings rather than three though not necessarily the two the PM is choosing, and I like his proposed amending rather than destroying the system.
Could not agree more Caron – fantastic post.
I agree with Caron. Burnham deserves enthusiastic if critical support. He is taking big risks for the sake of progressive national renewal. He is bound to hit bumps in the road. When that happens, the Lib Dems and Greens should be trying to help him stay on a sound course – Not trying to trip him up for partisan advantage.
Burnham will be desperately short of the financial resources he will need. Ed Davey’s Truss-like tax-cutting plan looks more and more unhelpful and out of touch with reality.
Keith Legg 30th Sep ’26 – 12:55pm………..I think the “triple lock” was needed when it was introduced, but there was always that risk that it would become too much of a burden if wages increased too quickly – which is what is happening…………….
Almost exactly 5 years ago (Sept 2021) the Tory government introduced a one-year suspension of the “triple lock” formula for annual state pension increases.
The move followed concern that a big post-pandemic rise in average earnings would have meant pensions increasing by 8%
Work and Pensions Secretary Therese Coffey said the average earnings component would be disregarded in the 2022-23 financial year…
Almost all economists agree that the ‘triple lock’ will be COMPLETELY unaffordable over the next decade and in the longer term.. Far better to put in place an adjustment than be forced into more drastic action in the future..
Here’s a contrast (BBC news today):
“Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey said … “Talk is cheap. Burnham must stop with all the ‘maybes’ … ” Just carping from the sidelines?
Burnham said: “We could look at what [former Chancellor] George Osborne has said about a customs union, we could look at what the Liberal Democrats said at their conference about the single market, or we could go all the way.”
Burnham didn’t need to mention either Osborne or the Lib Dems, but he nevertheless mentioned them, and in a positive way. That’s the way to lead a broad progressive movement.
David Allen, I don’t know about ‘broad progressive movement’ but the PM wants to make movement on topics where there is both entrenched warfare but also enough of a diversity of opinion to maybe make consensus possible, and also pull in people of all parties (or at least be seen to be trying) to create a shield so that not all the mud falls on Labour.
This isn’t million miles away from the ‘Government of All the Talents’ model his former boss Gordon Brown tried to deploy to create an appearance of competence, diligence and defuse punch-and-judy criticism from other parties, just before the economic crash of 2008 (Yes, that didn’t really get very far off the ground and did little to shield Brown from being seen as an angry micro-manager at the time). Arguably, its better.
I find it hard to be completely uncynical, but if Lib Dems are seen as thumbing their nose at the outstretched hand, they’re trashing their ethos as grown-up politicians who seek consensus (much as, in my opinion, Clegg’s insistence on total reform of the Lords, rather than incremental reform or a part-elected chamber, lost the chance of making headway under the coalition).
I really do despair at some in our party supporting the scrapping of the triple lock. Let’s put some facts out there. Even with the triple lock UK pensions are still the worst in Europe apart from Greece. All the triple lock has done is to change pensions from truly dreadful to just dreadful.
I notice that many of those who want the triple lock abolished are young. Maybe they don’t expect to have a pension at all and don’t see why pensioners should enjoy the benefits of the triple lock?
For people who drew their state old age pensions before 2016 (Including me) the pension is around £12500 a year or £250 a week. After 2016, thanks to Steve Webb it’s a modest amount higher. I challenge those calling for the end of the modest uprating of the triple lock to live on £250 a week and bear in mind that due to the freezing of tax thresholds, most pensioners will start paying tax on their pension soon.
The real problem is that successive governments have refused to put up National Insurance to allow for better pensions to be paid.
We wouldn’t need the triple lock or the double lock if pensioners who have paid all their lives in order to get a pension got a half decent pensiopn in the first place.
“I feel like we should have expressed a lot more enthusiasm for working with Burnham, but saying what we could bring to the table.” AND “Let’s be a bit more constructive”.
I agree with you Caron and must add we need to give people a greater sense of hope; just criticising in the tone conveyed in the quote from our party leadership is totally inadequate. We need to say more loudly our preparedness to work with Andy to some extent just as we said we wanted to help sort out the social care problem. We can to that surely without making the mistake of the coalition where we worked together but refused to more strongly say where we disagreed because we had an even better way of doing things.
Can we take the bigger picture so we make the right response to the Labour government?
Yes criticise the detail, but support the broad positive approach for change. The opposite will get people either continuing to ignore us on the national scene or feeling we are supporting the Conservatives. That would be a disaster because the Conservatives are now Reform lite and all Lib Dems surely agree that the last thing we want is a big vote for Reform. I also feel that the best way to undermine Reform UK is to call for policies that reduce inequality and if that means we be more left leaning then that is the way to go in current circumstances. We were a centre-left party and that is why I joined; i.e. left wing concerns without the centralised hard statism.
We also need to be heard more on local issues when we are campaigning locally and we need more rousing speeches from our leadership around the country, NOT just in Parliament where we are ignored by the media.
Sorry! in the above I meant to say ” we should be heard more on NATIONAL issues when we are campaigning locally”. How else can people know what we stand for on the big national issues?
Couldn’t agree more Karen. It’s the best speech in a generation, and more importantly an opportunity to build common cause on things that matter to us, like Electoral Reform. Burnham is supportive of STV. When for once we have someone genuinely open to collaboration, as you put it ‘it’s incredibly Poe-faced’. If anything that’s an overly kind description.
A huge mistake by Burnham. Opening the EU’s pandora box will sap the energy from this government . Everything will be overshadowed by that question.
I give up!.. Reading some of the posts it seems that Burnham shouldn’t have mentioned the EU, the ‘triple lock’ and also how his electoral reform is the ‘wrong kind’…
Please tell me, “What is the point of this party?” ‘cos i, certainly, don’t know..
Completely agree with this. Andy Burnham wants to improve politics. We are an opposition party so we oppose. It is pathetic, I am sorry to say.
@Chloe: The public mood has shifted considerably on the EU since 10 years ago. Obsession with keeping the faith over the Brexit referendum is confined to the fanatics, and they have a political home (actually several, it’s becoming rather JPF/PFJ over there). It’s good that Andy Burnham understands that there is no point in fishing in their pond.
I agree with you Caron. That sparkling and moving speech from the PM needed a welcome from Ed, with a statement of willingness to work with the government on the handful of huge challenges that Burnham addressed, saying that we’d bring our distinctive Liberal values and policies to each issue, and finishing with a couple of examples of these. Nothing more needed saying at this point.
Before we all go gung-ho perhaps best to note nothing has changed yet and unlikely to for months or years. A speech is one thing, delivery is another with all the competing winds blowing gales at any suggestion. Let us all hold our fire and let the calmer waters descend. In the short term we ,ay well have a large Labour victory at Holborn and that will be good if the Greens are pushed well back then the mid terms, after which anything could happen, even a new President and maybe a new U S approach to things.
PS We could be at war with Russia then what?
Alex; The debate will be bitterly divisive – even inside the labour party. I don’t sense any real clamour to have another referendum & as theakes said nothing is going to happen for over 2 years – all it will do is bog down labour with endless questions in regards to the EU from now. And let’s be brutally honest, when we were in it (EU) the public were indifferent to it , EU election turnouts were incredibly poor.
Brilliant post Caron. Thank you for summing up exactly how I felt!
Chloe — if he plays his cards right and everything he wants happens, Burnham can dangle reunion as an option that motivates the activists he needs, before plumping for either Davey’s or Osborne’s halfway house option, that might actually be pragmatically acceptable to many younger voters now (better economy, closer links, less culture war and no ongoing row, please). But he might be able to show Eurosceptics and Europhobes that he’s not going for the ‘nuclear option’ of rejoin.
But yes, it could go horribly wrong and there will be well-funded and loud people engaged in trying to machinate a backlash and an ‘over my dead body’ symbolic resistance.
Brilliant post Caron – spot on!
I am far too late to this discussion so just to say “I agree with Caron” and only add that if there is any crtiticism (and even then said constructively) no mention of the environment (in general not just sewerage) and climate crisis.
I’ve not heard a murmur about this omission (unless AB did say something and i haven’t picked it up.
Try and listen to Sharon Graham’s speech, the Unite General Secretary at their conference. Now that’s what I call a radical progressive speech, not Andy Burnham’s rabble rousing attempt.
Sharon should be listened to again and again. And the Unite leader is speaking up for workers and their working conditions and pensioner security. She supports the triple lock (many pensioners only get around £12,500 each year and are not all upper middle class) and taxing extreme wealth – all of which I agree with.
Sharon you should be the PM not Andy Burnham. And why not fund the NCS in the same way the brilliant Charles Kennedy suggested for the NHS, an extra 1p in the £ or equivalent on tax. I also support the people of Scotland and Wales having their own referendums to determine their future if they choose this option.