Key facts
- Andy Burnham's speech was praised by some commentators for its oratorical skill.
- Critics described the speech as saccharine and a "triple shock" of radical proposals.
- The speech included plans for a new Brexit deal, proportional voting, social care, and housing reforms.
- The Daily Mail called the speech the "most left-wing speech by a PM since the 1970s".
- The Sun referred to the speech as a "Locky horror show" and "most divisive".
Commentators have offered a range of reactions to Andy Burnham's recent speech at the Labour party conference, with praise for his delivery contrasting with criticism of his policy proposals. Andrew Marr, former BBC political editor, described Burnham as "at least as good a platform speaker as Blair, perhaps better," while Piers Morgan called it "one of the best, and most powerfully delivered, by a British politician in a very long time."
Tim Shipman, political editor of The Spectator, deemed the speech "as good as anything we’ve seen since" Blair and "one of the most important and defining" in his experience attending conferences since 2001. Patrick Maguire, The Times’s chronicler of Labour, agreed it would be remembered as a "formative, watershed moment."
However, the speech also drew sharp criticism. Quentin Letts, the Mail’s sketch writer, found it overly saccharine. The Daily Mail's editorial described the speech as the "most left-wing speech by a PM since the 1970s" and highlighted a "triple shock" of pension reforms, care plans, and a Brexit rethink. The Sun labelled it the "Locky horror show" and "most divisive," referencing Burnham's pension triple lock reform and plans to remove homes from bad landlords.
Commentators on the right also targeted Burnham's proposals on social care, housing, and a potential new Brexit deal. Trevor Kavanagh of The Sun criticized the address as "the most divisive speech I’ve heard from any prime minister," and suggested Burnham's emotional reference to his father was a "blatant pitch for sympathy."
The Daily Mail's editorial questioned "Who pays for PM’s New Jerusalem," suggesting the speech concerned the general voter more than Labour supporters. It also contrasted Burnham favorably with his predecessor, Keir Starmer, calling Starmer "incorrigibly wooden" and "a strong candidate for worst public speaker in political history."
Shipman, while praising the delivery, noted "room for improvement" in the content, particularly regarding the National Care Service and the savings from ditching the pension triple lock, arguing Burnham had "no plan for growth." He concluded the speech presented "the most partisan left-wing set of priorities we have seen since the days of Harold Wilson."
Overall, coverage indicated that Burnham had articulated a clear statement of intent, unlike his predecessor. Maguire suggested it could be an "epoch-defining Thatcherism of the left or Truss with charisma." The Times’s editorial, however, viewed it as a "curious throwback" to a working-class focus that may not resonate with Labour's increasingly middle-class support base.