Category Archives: Labour

What does Andy Burnham’s social care announcement mean for providers?

On Tuesday 29 July, Prime Minister Andy Burnham, Louise Casey and Health Secretary Yvette Cooper outlined the government’s approach to adult social care reform. Burnham said it was ‘shameful’ that decades of political point-scoring had come at the expense of meaningful reform and argued that he is prepared to spend political capital to deliver lasting change. The prime minister used the speech to make three key announcements.

First, Burnham confirmed that Louise Casey’s independent review of adult social care will be accelerated by a year, with final recommendations now expected by summer 2027. He said Casey had been asked to consider how the government could deliver a National Care Service, arguing that social care should become more preventative, person-centred and better integrated with the NHS.

Second, Burnham announced a renewed focus on the social care workforce. Building on the government’s plans to introduce a Fair Pay Agreement for care workers from 2028/29, he said ministers would explore wider reforms to improve pay, training and career progression. He also proposed creating clearer pathways between social care and NHS roles to help professionalise the workforce and improve recruitment and retention.

Third, Burnham announced the launch of cross-party talks on social care reform involving the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. He argued that lasting reform would require political consensus and described the discussions as the first test of his commitment to a less adversarial style of politics. Burnham said common ground must be found if policymakers are to address challenges that have remained unresolved for decades.

Both Andy Burnham and Louise Casey signalled that future reform would involve greater scrutiny of private providers. Casey argued that there remains an important role for a mixed market in adult social care, but criticised providers perceived to be “profiteering” from care services. Burnham echoed these concerns, arguing that some parts of the sector have prioritised profit and cost-cutting over the quality of care and outcomes for vulnerable people. However, Burnham has historically adopted a pragmatic rather than an ideological approach to public service reform. As health secretary in the Brown-led government, he recognised the role that independent providers could play in increasing NHS capacity and reducing waiting times where they delivered value for patients and taxpayers.

As a result, he is unlikely to pursue reforms that materially reduce the private sector’s role in adult social care. Given the significant share of care capacity and expertise provided by independent providers, the prime minister is likely to be mindful of avoiding reforms that could destabilise the market by causing market exits and place further pressure on already stretched services. Instead, providers should expect a greater focus on accountability and transparency, clearer standards to improve the quality and consistency of care, and enhanced scrutiny of how public funding and provider profits are used. The NHS Modernisation Bill currently going through the Commons is one key place to watch if any substantive change is to come forward.

On funding, Burnham argued that significant improvements could be achieved through more effective use of existing resources before tax rises are considered. He highlighted the costs associated with avoidable hospital admissions and delayed discharges caused by inadequate social care provision, suggesting that greater investment in prevention could deliver substantial savings across the wider health system. However, significant questions remain about the long-term funding model for a National Care Service. Reports suggest officials are exploring options ranging from social insurance-style contributions to inheritance-based levies, although ministers have stressed that no decisions will be taken until Casey’s review is complete and the new prime minister remains constrained to some extent by Labour’s 2024 manifesto commitments on tax.

Phil Hope, GK’s Strategic Adviser and former care services minister under Andy Burnham at the Department for Health, who was directly referenced in the prime minister’s speech said: ‘The prime minister was clear that he wants to build a broad consensus around social care reform and move the debate beyond the political point-scoring that has hindered progress in the past. Bringing forward the Louise Casey review to 2027 creates an opportunity for that conversation to take place away from the pressures of a forthcoming general election. While concerns about profiteering were raised, there was little detail on the scale of the issue or how ministers might address it, making this an area the Casey review is likely to explore further.’

Steve Brine, GK’s Strategic Advisor and former health minister as well as chair of the cross-party Health and Social Care Select Committee said: ‘It was a hugely impressive performance from Andy Burnham with what was more a political than a policy announcement but his authenticity on the subject is welcome and important. It was really about creating the political conditions for reform rather than announcing the detail, but that day will come – along with who pays – and that is the next big moment. Casey’s challenge is to define what ministers actually mean by ‘National Care Service’ – is it about standards, funding, eligibility – and for the PM it’s how will someone’s experience be different in two, three or five years’ time? That’s ultimately how people will judge success.’

Helicopter over the dessert

Politics of Defence

The UK Government has today published its long-awaited Defence Investment Plan (DIP).

Due back in Autumn 2025, the plan aims to fund Britain’s Armed Forces into the next decade. In one of his final acts as Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer today announced an additional £15bn in funding for defence over four-years with money taken from other departments to pay for it. Nonetheless, the government has faced criticism from across Westminster on the funding allocation and the extent to which the DIP meets the challenges the country faces today and into the near future.

For the Prime Minister, this has come at a huge personal political cost. Lord Robertson, the highly respected lead author of the UK’s first independent Strategic Defence Review (SDR), published in June 2025, gave a carefully constructed speech in April directly criticising Sir Keir and Chancellor Rachel Reeves in what he described as a ‘corrosive complacency [today] in Britain’s political leadership’. More recently, two defence ministers, including the Secretary of State John Healey, resigned over the Prime Minister’s political weakness when faced with commitments to fund defence.

While the government has accepted the SDR’s 62 recommendations, the DIP today makes clear and sensible allocations in areas set out below and supportive of last year’s SDR. Yet at its heart, the monies still fail to add up to fund UK defence with many across defence industry and the military having already spoken to this fundamental point.

The plan itself focuses on cheaper, uncrewed autonomy, space, land lethality, cyber and electromagnetics in addition to £11bn to replenish the weapons and munitions sent to Ukraine and £63bn for the nuclear deterrent – it alone is some 20 per cent of the overall budget.

The 81-page plan delivered to Parliament by the new Defence Secretary Dan Jarvis, sets the course for defence spend of only 2.7% of GDP by 2030. Tan Dhesi MP, Chair of the Commons Defence Select Committee, said the government has not provided a ‘clear pathway’ to spending the committed three per cent of GDP on defence.

There remain unanswered questions over the allocation of funds for capital spend in an environment of large personnel expense and general fiscal realism. While the SDR set an ambition within tight spending envelopes, the DIP was meant to be a serious credibility test of government.

In a wider update to the Commons, Dan Jarvis did not rule out the UK joining a defence investment bank, an idea championed by former Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney, the now Prime Minister of Canada. This is something the Treasury has resisted. Of interest, former Health Secretary Wes Streeting asked Jarvis if the government would reconsider joining in the Commons earlier today.

Beyond equipment, the government has committed to invest £70m to support veterans through the Office for Veterans Affairs, including £12m investment in a new fund for reducing veteran homelessness.

Ultimately, all government policy, including defence, is Treasury-driven and what the PM thinks matters most; this most recent review and debate over funding secured the fate of Prime Minister Starmer. In a matter of weeks, the UK government will be under new leadership, faced with the very real and pressing challenges of national security. With visibility of government priorities and funding allocated, now the defence industry small and large can answer the government’s call and GK Strategy is ready to help with engagement, both in procurement and senior relationships in DE&S, Main Building and across Whitehall.

Please email Senior Partner and defence and security lead Scott Dodsworth to learn more. scott@gkstrategy.com

SD. Tuesday 30 June 2026

Community pharmacy settlement brings stability, but long-term challenges remain

As a former Pharmacy Minister, I watch the annual community pharmacy contract negotiations with interest because I know how important they are. This year’s settlement is notable for one reason above many in that it was agreed! That may sound like a low bar, but in today’s NHS it is anything but.

At a time when ministers find themselves in dispute with almost every part of the health workforce, the fact that Government and Community Pharmacy England have reached an agreement matters.

Negotiation remains preferable to imposition. It provides stability, certainty and, perhaps most importantly, a platform for future reform. The settlement itself is better than many in the sector (including me) were expecting. Indeed, compared with the rest of primary care, community pharmacy has secured one of the stronger funding settlements available anywhere in the NHS.

Minister Stephen Kinnock deserve praise for recognising that pharmacies cannot carry on indefinitely with rising costs. The increase in funding, the uplift in retained medicines margin and the write-off of historic over-delivery all sit on the positive side of the ledger.

But we should be honest about what this settlement is – and what it is not.

It is not a recovery plan. The uncomfortable truth is that a decade long funding gap – which I absolutely take my share of responsibility for – has not been closed. The additional investment announced for 2026/27 is largely consumed by increased activity levels and of course inflation. This matters because while the settlement should help stabilise the sector, I suspect it will not halt pharmacy closures.

There is another challenge too. I have great respect for Community Pharmacy England but there will come a point where it must decide whether it believes a deal is acceptable or not.

Last year, and now this, we hear of an agreement reached quickly followed by explanations setting out why the agreement is not good enough. I understand why this occurs, but it is not a position that can be sustained indefinitely and many in the sector will feel that. Ministers won’t much care so long as it’s done and they will come to rely on that.

At some point, the sector, government and negotiators alike need true alignment on what success actually looks like. The government’s clear priority in this settlement is independent prescribing. As a manifesto commitment and a central part of the neighbourhood health agenda, it is easy to see why ministers are keen to deliver here.

The principle is absolutely right. For years I have argued that community pharmacy is one of the NHS’ most underused assets. Everyone should want pharmacists diagnosing, prescribing and managing more patients – ‘hospital to community’ as they say.

My concern is whether the funding stamped on this settlement will be enough to deliver independent prescribing at a meaningful scale. Training people is vital. Creating the capacity, infrastructure and incentives to make independent prescribing a systemic part of community pharmacy practice is another challenge.

My verdict? This is a better deal than many anticipated and best in class in primary care. It provides some level of stability and demonstrates that constructive negotiation is still possible with this government.

But stability is not transformation.

The question facing us all is whether the settlement represents the first step towards a realised clinical future for community pharmacy – or merely another year spent managing decline, albeit a little more slowly.

This article from Steve Brine also appears at the Chemist + Druggist online magazine.

Burnham’s Gamble: The Contest That Could Decide Britain’s Next Prime Minister

Andy Burnham’s intention to make a return to parliament has been clear for a number of years, despite assurances – until recently – that he was focused on his role as mayor of Greater Manchester. Following disastrous local election results for Labour and subsequent calls from Labour MPs for Keir Starmer to resign, Burnham’s opportunity has finally arrived. Josh Simons MP resigned earlier this month to allow Burnham to stand for election in the constituency of Makerfield. Unlike the Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this year — where Burnham sought to run but was blocked by the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee — the NEC has allowed Burnham to stand, and the Prime Minister has made no apparent attempt to prevent it. This shift reflects the severe weakening of Starmer’s authority amongst the Parliamentary Labour Party, with almost 100 Labour MPs calling for his resignation in the aftermath of the local elections.

This is a hugely consequential by-election that is highly likely to determine the future of this Labour government. If Burnham wins, he is widely expected to challenge Starmer for the leadership of the Labour Party and his position as prime minister. If he loses, questions around Starmer’s leadership are likely to persist, though the path forward becomes far less clear. Other prominent figures, such as former health secretary, Wes Streeting, or former deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, are likely to emerge as challengers, but in that scenario Starmer could remain in office for longer despite his weakened position.

The main challenger to Labour in Makerfield is Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. Reform UK’s candidate Robert Kenyon is a local plumber who contested the constituency for Reform UK at the 2024 general election. The contrast between the two candidates is stark: Andy Burnham has spent almost his entire working life in frontline politics and is widely seen as having leadership ambitions, while Kenyon is positioning himself as a local, political outsider. While Reform UK may have hoped that Kenyon’s local profile would resonate with voters, particularly when contrasted with Burnham’s national political ambitions, it is Burnham’s strong personal popularity as mayor of Greater Manchester that is likely to bolster his performance. If Labour had selected any other candidate, Reform UK would almost certainly win this by-election as Makerfield is the 29th most easily winnable seat for Reform UK, based on the swing required from the 2024 general election for the party to win the seat.

With Burnham in the running, the result is expected to be extremely close between Labour and Reform UK. The first constituency poll shows Burnham leading Reform by just three percentage points, underlining how competitive the race is going to be. The outcome may ultimately depend on where smaller-party voters choose to lend their support, if they choose to do so at all. Labour will hope to attract tactical backing from voters who would otherwise support the Liberal Democrats or the Green Party, while Reform UK will seek to consolidate support on the right from voters considering Restore Britain. The growing momentum behind Restore Britain’s campaign also threatens to split the right wing vote if would be Reform UK voters switch their vote to Restore Britain, which could deny Reform UK a victory. Restore Britain was established as a right-wing challenge to Reform UK by former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe, who left the party following a dispute with Nigel Farage over policy. Currently, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party are collectively polling at 7%. The same figure as Restore Britain. This means even relatively small shifts through tactical voting could determine the outcome of the by-election contest.

Another factor that may shift the result is the media scrutiny surrounding Kenyon’s social media posts and the numerous Reform UK councillors that have stood down since the local elections on 7 May. If these issues resonate with voters, it could become a significant issue in the campaign and may bolster Labour’s chances in this highly competitive election.

The key issues on which the by-election is being fought have also presented risks for Burnham’s campaign. Burnham has already started to change tack on several policy issues in a bid to make himself more attractive to voters in the Makerfield constituency. For example, in an attempt to neutralise Reform UK’s attacks on his previous position that the UK should rejoin the EU, Burnham has stated that he will not reopen the Brexit debate. He has also agreed to maintain the government’s existing fiscal rules, despite having previously questioned them. . For businesses and investors, this points towards the possibility that a Burnham government may pursue a policy agenda that is broadly similar to the current government than Burnham would like to explicitly admit. These U-turns in fundamental policy areas may risk Burnham appearing the same as Starmer: a politician that changes their stance at the first sign of opposition. If Reform UK can capitalise on this, it may undermine Burnham’s attempt to present himself as a fundamentally different kind of Labour leader and weaken the electoral advantage that currently makes him such a significant political threat to both Starmer and Farage.

If Burnham achieves victory in a seat that would almost certainly be won by Reform UK against any other Labour candidate, it will be politically significant beyond the by-election itself. A win would allow Burnham to argue that he has the electoral appeal needed to reverse Reform UK’s lead in the national opinion polls and could persuade Labour MPs that he can address many of the government’s political and electoral problems. If Burnham wins, this makes it likely that he would be able to gain nominations from the 81 MPs required to trigger a leadership challenge, with many Labour MPs potentially concluding that he is the person who is most capable of stopping Reform UK from winning the next general election. With polling of Labour members showing that Burnham would beat any other contender for leader, this may mean that success in the by-election paves a path for Burnham to be the next Prime Minister. If Burnham fails to be elected, however, those same polls show that Starmer would beat a number of other candidates in a head-to-head election for the Labour leadership, including Wes Streeting.

The importance of this by-election cannot be overstated. It creates the conditions for Burnham to become Prime Minister, but also for Starmer to remain in position, having seen off other potential challengers.   It is vital for businesses and investors to begin thinking now about how a future Burnham-led government may affect them and to consider how existing policy agendas could continue to be developed by a weakened Starmer administration.

If you would like to talk more about the outcome of the by-election or the potential of a Burnham-led government, please email jacob.walsh@gkstrategy.com.