https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cWg5KPLzfo

Andy Burnham has said he is more determined than ever to fix the broken social care system after the death of his beloved father.

The Prime Minister said it was painful to see the same failures that impacted his grandmother 25 years ago when his dad Roy needed care as he battled Alzheimer’s disease. Mr Burnham’s dad, who had been living in a care home, died earlier this month aged 86.

His father’s illness meant he did not know that his son was becoming Prime Minister. However Mr Burnham later said the staff in his care home thought he had shown a flicker of recognition when they showed him the moment the PM entered No10 on TV.

Speaking to the Sunday Mirror from his No10 North office in Manchester, the PM said the experience had fuelled him further. He said: “In a word, yes. I won’t leave office without having grasped this nettle.

“I saw what happened to my grandmother. You’re going back 25 years ago now. She died in 2002, and she went through the care system, and it wasn’t good enough at all. And that really focused me on the issue.”

Mr Burnham’s gran Catherine Murray was forced to sell her home to pay for her care. He previously revealed how her wedding ring was stolen from her hand as she lay in a nursing home.

He told us that the experience had left a lasting mark, and he had tried to bring forward reforms when he was Health Secretary “so that my parents’ generation didn’t have the same experience as my grandparents’ generation had”.

The PM said: “But here I am today, having now directly, painfully, personally experienced the fact that that has happened to my parents’ generation, and not just [my parents], I’m talking about thousands and thousands of people across the country.

“That is a shameful dereliction of duty by a generation of Westminster politicians who have just shown total cowardice in relation to this issue.

“The idea that it’s too difficult. How can the care that we give from one person to another be too difficult for politics? How? I mean, that is terrible, that politics has got itself to a position where it’s so superficial and so focus group driven that it won’t take on a difficult argument and say, no we have to fix this.”

The PM said failure to fix social care will “break the NHS”, and said stretched care staff are being told to ring 999 to if there is a problem with a patient.

“You cannot fix 21st Century care needs on that basis where there’s no prevention and we’re just sending everything to hospital” he said.

“In the end, it will sink the NHS if we carry on in this way. So I’m not going to leave office having done what everyone else in my position has done, and pretty much say, ‘well, I’m not going to deal with this. It’s too difficult. It’s not a priority.’

“It is a priority for me, and I will face it. And it may make me unpopular, but I’m going to do it.”

Social care will feature in Mr Burnham’s conference speech on Tuesday, where he will address party faithful as Labour leader for the first time.

“It’s not the case that there’s a complete detailed plan yet,” he said. “I will just go out and make the argument in a front foot way, talking about the experience that I’ve been through, that we’ve been through.

“The thing I would say is, my dad could not have been cared for better by the people in the care home where he was, or you know when he was at home, amazing people and some of them from all parts of the world.

“The fact that they do it in a broken system on poverty pay just makes them all the more remarkable that they do that for other people’s parents day in, day out.

“When you when you’re living it and when you’re looking at it through the eyes of your own parent, you look at what they do in a different way because you really observe it.

“It’s so moving when you see how they do what they do, and it makes me angry about modern politics actually, that they are invisible to most politicians what they do in their jobs every day, and it just cannot be possibly justified in any way, shape, or form.”

Under the slogan “Hope Again”, the PM will seek to fire up Labour troops at a moment when the party’s electoral fortunes appear to be on the up.

He said: “We are going to set out what we believe is a path for the country to feel more hopeful, have a sense of belief and direction.

“It can’t be done overnight. But it is about being honest about where we haven’t gone right in the right direction in the past, and then saying clearly to people, these are the things we will do to put Britain on the right path, to let the country believe again, let people have hope again.”

But Mr Burnham faces mounting challenges to deliver on his plans to ease the cost of living, as the economic picture darkens ahead of a high-stakes Budget next month.

The PM wouldn’t be drawn on his plans to balance the books but insisted Labour’s manifesto commitments on tax still stand, which rule out hikes to VAT, income tax and national insurance for working people.

And he signalled there would be more help to come on the cost of living.

He said: “Of course it’s a hard outlook right now. But I will be pointing very much to the fact that VAT is coming off Mirror Readers electricity bills next week. Now that isn’t the be-all and end-all, honestly. Don’t get me wrong, but it helps.

“I’ll be pointing to the fact that there’ll be a cap on bus fares across England for the whole of 2027, two pound cap. That helps, you know. So the thing is, hope comes from doing the small things as well as the big things.”

He said he wanted to do all he can to give breathing space to business too, saying: “I realise it’s a hard climate for people out there. But I think all of that can bring a sense of hope. We’re not promising people the earth, but you’re showing there are things that can still be done, and actually beyond those first steps, there’s a direction for the country that will take us to a better place in the long term.”

But Mr Burnham and Chancellor John Healey face a string of unenviable choices to balance the books – tax rises, public spending or more borrowing.

Asked if there could be a return to austerity, he said: “We’re obviously trying our best to make sure that we don’t go back to those days in the 2010s. The damage that was done in that period actually I think has sometimes been underestimated.

“The hollowing out of council budgets, I think, damaged growth at a local level. So alongside breathing space, we want this to be a growth promoting Budget.”

Mr Burnham will sketch out more of his vision on how to hand people more control over their lives – and the state more control of vital services.

“The country took some wrong turns in the 1980s. Things were broken up and sold off: homes, energy, water, transport, care,” he said.

“Why is Britain not in the place that it should be? How do we give people more control over their lives, the country more control over the basics? That’s the theme that I’ll be developing in Liverpool.”

Another difficult issue on his desk is the small boat crisis, and the rise of toxic far-right protests on the south coast.

The PM said: “The best thing we can do is to get the overall numbers down, and they are down. Those who want to build public unrest will focus on one issue or one day.

“But the crucial thing is to look at the big picture, and the big picture shows that boat crossings are down by around 50% between where they are now and where they were in the early 2020s.

“So massive progress has been made. I’m not saying it’s good enough. I’m not complacent about it.”

He said the gangs were being forced to change their models as the Government cracks down, but said the Home Office would be relentless in adapting.

He added: “I think it’s really important that we don’t allow those who want a narrative, they will leap on one incident or one day or whatever to suit their political purposes. What we need to do is to point to the broad picture, which is one of progress – not enough, but progress.”

Mr Burnham rubbished speculation in Westminster that he was planning to call an early general election. “There will be no early election, so people may as well forget about that,” he said. “We’re focusing on the here and the now.”

Andy Burnham Vows to Fix Social Care After Death of His Father: ‘I Won’t Leave Office Without Tackling This’

Andy Burnham has vowed to make reforming Britain’s social care system one of his defining priorities following the death of his father, Roy, saying his family’s experience has strengthened his determination to address a crisis that successive governments have struggled to resolve.

The Prime Minister has spoken emotionally about watching his father live with Alzheimer’s disease and receiving care in the final years of his life. The experience brought back painful memories of his grandmother Catherine Murray, whose own experience of the care system had left a lasting impression on him decades earlier.

For Burnham, the issue is no longer simply a question of public policy or government spending. It is a personal commitment shaped by seeing the difficulties faced by families trying to secure dignity, security and appropriate support for loved ones.

He has argued that the social care system has been neglected for too long and warned that failing to reform it will place increasing pressure on the National Health Service. His determination to act has also revived a difficult political question: how can Britain create a fairer, more reliable care system while paying for the substantial costs involved?

A personal loss that strengthened Burnham’s resolve

Burnham’s father died earlier in September 2026, aged 86, after living with Alzheimer’s disease. His illness meant he was unable to fully understand the significance of his son’s rise to the highest political office in the country.

Burnham has described how care-home staff showed his father footage of him entering Downing Street. According to the Prime Minister, staff believed his father may have shown a brief flicker of recognition.

The moment captured the emotional complexity of caring for someone with dementia. Families can experience profound sadness as a loved one gradually loses memories and independence, while also feeling immense gratitude towards the people providing daily support.

Burnham praised the staff who cared for his father, both at home and in residential care. He said their dedication had made a difficult period more bearable, while raising questions about why people doing such essential work often receive low wages and operate within a system under severe pressure.

His father’s death also forced him to confront the fact that the problems he had hoped to resolve years earlier had continued to affect his own family.

Burnham previously attempted to advance social care reform while serving as health secretary. He had hoped that changes would prevent the generation of his parents from experiencing the difficulties encountered by their own parents.

Instead, he found himself facing many of the same questions when his father needed care.

That experience has reinforced his determination to pursue reform during his time in government. Burnham has said he does not intend to leave office without making a serious attempt to resolve the issue, even if doing so requires difficult or unpopular decisions.

Why social care has become a national challenge

Social care provides assistance to people who need help with everyday activities because of age, disability, illness or other circumstances. It can include support with washing, dressing, eating, moving around the home and maintaining independence.

Unlike most NHS treatment, however, social care is not universally free at the point of use in England. Depending on a person’s financial circumstances and the type of support required, individuals and families may have to contribute substantial sums towards care.

This distinction has created a system in which a person’s financial security can become closely connected to their care needs.

Someone who develops dementia or requires residential support may face costs that accumulate over many years. Families can struggle to understand the rules, arrange suitable provision and determine how much assistance they will receive from public funds.

For some people, the financial consequences are manageable. For others, care costs can consume savings accumulated throughout a lifetime.

Burnham has criticised what he describes as a system in which people can lose much of what they have worked for simply because they require care. He argues that the cost already exists under the current arrangements, but that the burden is distributed unfairly.

His proposed approach would seek to spread more of that financial responsibility across society rather than leaving individual families exposed to potentially devastating bills.

However, achieving that goal would require decisions about public funding, eligibility, the role of private providers and the responsibilities of individuals receiving care.

These are questions that previous governments have found politically difficult, partly because every proposed solution creates winners, losers and competing demands on limited resources.

The pressure on families caring for loved ones

Behind the political debate are families who often find themselves navigating the system during some of the most stressful periods of their lives.

When a parent develops dementia, relatives may have to coordinate medical appointments, organise home support, communicate with care providers and make decisions about future living arrangements.

The process can be emotionally exhausting, particularly when family members are also working, raising children or managing their own health problems.

Some people provide unpaid care for years. Others must reduce their working hours or leave employment altogether because appropriate support is unavailable or unaffordable.

Financial pressures can compound these difficulties. Families may be uncertain about whether local authorities will fund particular services, whether savings will affect eligibility or how residential care fees will be paid.

The system can also be difficult to navigate because responsibility is divided between the NHS, local councils, private care providers and families themselves.

A person may receive medical treatment through the NHS while needing separate arrangements for assistance with everyday living. When those services do not coordinate effectively, vulnerable people can fall between institutional boundaries.

Burnham’s personal experience has brought these issues into sharper focus. His argument is that a modern society should not expect families to navigate a fragmented system without adequate support or leave essential workers struggling to deliver care under difficult conditions.

A proposed National Care Service

Burnham has promoted the idea of a National Care Service, drawing inspiration from the principles underpinning the NHS.

The broad ambition is to establish a more consistent system in which people receive appropriate support according to their needs, rather than facing sharply different experiences depending on where they live or how much money they have.

One potential element would be greater public support for personal care, including assistance with washing, dressing and other essential daily activities. The proposal could also seek to improve coordination between health services and social care, helping people remain independent for longer.

Such a system could benefit older people, disabled adults and families caring for relatives with long-term conditions.

But a National Care Service would not automatically mean that every cost associated with residential care would be paid by the state. Accommodation, food and other expenses would need to be considered separately, depending on the final design of the policy.

Important details remain to be resolved, including eligibility rules, the responsibilities of local authorities, the role of private providers and how the service would be funded.

The financial implications are considerable. Estimates of the additional annual cost of a comprehensive system vary according to the level of support offered and the proportion of people whose care would be publicly funded. Some estimates have placed the potential cost in the region of £18.5 billion a year.

That scale of spending means Burnham cannot rely on a general promise of reform alone. His government will eventually have to explain where the money will come from and how the system will be introduced without destabilising other public services.

The difficult question of who pays

Funding is likely to become one of the most contentious aspects of the proposed reforms.

A system offering more generous support would require a sustainable source of revenue. Possible approaches could include general taxation, a dedicated contribution, changes to existing means-testing arrangements or a combination of measures.

Each option involves trade-offs.

Raising taxes could provide a reliable source of funding but might place additional pressure on workers and businesses. Increasing public borrowing could spread costs over time, but it would also have to be considered alongside debt, interest payments and other government commitments.

Alternatively, restricting eligibility could reduce the immediate financial burden on the state but leave many families facing substantial care bills.

Burnham has indicated that he is prepared to confront difficult choices rather than abandon reform because the debate is politically uncomfortable.

He has also argued that the current system already imposes a significant cost on families, meaning that a discussion about funding should not begin from the assumption that reform creates an entirely new financial burden.

The question, in his view, is how to distribute that burden more fairly and ensure that people receive the support they need.

Nevertheless, the government will have to provide detailed figures and explain the consequences of its proposals. Voters will want to know how much any new arrangements could cost them, who would benefit and whether the changes would protect people from catastrophic care expenses.

Why social care reform matters to the NHS

Burnham has warned that the failure to address social care threatens the long-term sustainability of the NHS.

The two systems are closely connected. When people cannot access appropriate support at home or in residential care, their health may deteriorate until hospital treatment becomes necessary.

Hospitals can also struggle to discharge patients who are medically ready to leave but do not have a suitable care package or a safe place to go.

When beds remain occupied, other patients may face delays in receiving treatment. Staff can be placed under additional pressure, and the cost of providing hospital care may rise.

A properly funded social care system could help prevent some avoidable hospital admissions, support earlier discharge where appropriate and allow more people to remain independent in their own homes.

However, these benefits would depend on the availability of trained staff, suitable housing, community services and effective coordination between healthcare professionals and care providers.

Reform would therefore require more than a new national structure. It would also need investment in the workforce and a practical plan for delivering services across different communities.

Burnham’s emphasis on prevention reflects the argument that support should be provided before a crisis develops, rather than waiting until someone requires emergency treatment.

Recognising the people who provide care

Another central issue is the workforce.

Care workers perform demanding tasks that require patience, skill and emotional resilience. They support people who may be frightened, confused, seriously ill or unable to communicate their needs easily.

Yet the sector has long faced challenges involving pay, recruitment, staff retention and working conditions.

Low wages can make it difficult to attract and retain experienced workers, while shortages can increase pressure on existing staff. When providers cannot recruit enough people, families may struggle to secure reliable support.

Burnham has praised the workers who cared for his father, describing their commitment as remarkable given the difficulties they face.

His comments highlight an important distinction: individual care workers can deliver compassionate, high-quality support even when the wider system is under strain. Their dedication, however, cannot substitute for adequate funding, staffing and organisation.

A National Care Service would need to consider how to improve pay, training, career progression and employment conditions. It would also have to account for the contribution of unpaid carers, whose work often prevents additional pressure from falling on formal services.

Without a stable workforce, even a well-designed reform programme could struggle to deliver its promises.

Can Burnham finally break the political deadlock?

Social care reform has repeatedly proved difficult for British governments because it combines emotionally sensitive questions with complicated financial choices.

People want reassurance that they will receive good care when they need it. They also want to protect their savings, support their families and avoid unexpected financial hardship.

At the same time, governments must decide how much public money can be allocated to care alongside healthcare, education, housing, defence and other priorities.

Previous proposals have faced opposition over questions of fairness, taxation and the treatment of personal wealth. A policy that appears reasonable to one group may be viewed as unfair by another.

Burnham’s experience with his father and grandmother gives him a personal reason to continue pursuing reform, but personal determination alone will not guarantee success.

He will need to build public understanding, secure political support and develop a funding model that can survive changes in economic conditions and future governments.

There will also be difficult questions about the balance between state responsibility and individual contribution. A sustainable settlement must recognise the need for collective protection while remaining clear about what taxpayers can reasonably be expected to fund.

A promise that will be judged by its results

The death of Roy Burnham has given the Prime Minister a deeply personal perspective on the weaknesses of the social care system. It has also strengthened his stated commitment to making reform a priority.

His ambition is to prevent other families from experiencing the same uncertainty and distress, while ensuring that care workers receive greater recognition for their contribution.

The proposed National Care Service offers a possible framework for addressing longstanding problems, but its success will depend on the detail: funding, staffing, eligibility, accountability and the practical delivery of support.

For families currently facing high care bills or struggling to find suitable assistance, the need for change is immediate. They cannot wait indefinitely for another commission, another consultation or another political promise.

Burnham has made clear that he wants to confront the issue rather than pass it to a future government. The challenge now is to translate that determination into a credible programme capable of improving people’s lives.

His father’s death cannot be undone, and the experiences of his family cannot by themselves resolve a national crisis. But Burnham is using those experiences to explain why he believes the issue deserves sustained political attention.

Ultimately, his legacy on social care will not be determined by the strength of his words or the sincerity of his personal commitment. It will be measured by whether people can obtain good-quality care when they need it, whether families are protected from financial hardship and whether those who provide care are treated with the dignity and security their work deserves.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.