John Swinney, Scotland’s first minister and the SNP leader, has said Andy Burnham is making the same mistake with pensioners as Keir Starmer. In a statement on Burnham’s speech, he said:

We have provided free personal care for the elderly here in Scotland without punishing pensioners and what the prime minister was doing was repeating the mistakes of Keir Starmer.

The first act of Keir Starmer was to take away winter fuel payments from pensioners, and now the first act of Andy Burnham was to take away the triple lock from pensioners.

It’s a strange way to go about trying to build support for significant reforms and I think on the basis of the mistakes made by Keir Starmer, Andy Burnham is going the same way.

Electoral reform campaigners are delighted by Andy Burnham’s commitment to a commission on changing the voting system.

Darren Hughes, chief executive at the Electoral Reform Society, said:

We welcome the prime minister’s committment put electoral reform for Westminster into his party’s next manifesto. Andy Burnham has long been a passionate advocate for proportional representation so that everyone’s vote counts and everyone’s voice is heard. This is an essential step to rebuilding trust in our politics, which is currently at record lows.

Tom Brake, chief executive of Unlock Democracy, said:

The PM is right that first past the post needs replacing. In today’s multi-party politics, it is not fit for purpose. It bakes in volatility and robs millions of voters of fair representation. “A year ago this week, Andy Burnham told a conference event that ‘PR is an idea whose time has come.’ We’re delighted that now, as prime minister, he has kickstarted the process to deliver it.

But Ellie Chowns, the Green party’s parliamentary leader, said Burnham should change the voting system now. She said:

The Green party has been making the case for a fairer, more representative electoral system for years: one where every vote counts equally and every voice is heard. So I welcome the prime minister’s support for electoral reform today, and as well as his announcement of a national commission on electoral reform and invitation for all political parties to participate.

But there is a glaring contradiction at the heart of what the prime minister said today. Burnham warned that Labour will have ‘failed’ if they ‘open the doors of No 10 to a divisive government with less than 30% of the vote,’ yet simultaneously ruled out making changes to the voting system before the next general election – locking the promise of a fairer system behind his party winning another election under the very system he says needs to change.

That is simply not good enough. The PM cannot acknowledge the unfairness of a system capable of handing power to a government with a minority of the vote share, and then say the answer is to let that happen exactly once more before he fixes it.

Here is some reaction to Andy Burnham’s speech from journalists and commentors.

From Ethan Croft at the New Statesman

“Today we draw a line on a decade of division,” Andy Burnham told Labour conference in his first speech as leader on Tuesday. He meant the country, with its succession of seven prime ministers over the last ten years, but the PM might just as well have been talking about the Labour Party. Since 2016, Labour has swung from left to right and now ended up here, with a feel-good conference speech packed full of policy announcements from the soft left middle of the party (proponents call it the “heart” of the party, critics call it the “comfort zone”).

From Steven Swinford at the Times

Andy Burnham said he would go big, and he did. He went big on policy: a potential path to rejoining the EU, scrapping the triple lock to fund social care for all, repealing the “ideological” ban on the public ownership of water companies, and electoral reform.

But it was also a speech that was big on emotion, at once deeply personal and political, as the prime minister appeared to become overwhelmed as he recalled the recent death of his father.

From Kitty Donaldson from the i

A brave and sometimes emotional speech from Andy Burnham. But he’s yet to win the argument about scrapping the triple lock to help fund social care within his own Cabinet and his own party, never mind the country.

From the broadcaster and writer Michael Crick

I’m often very critical of leaders’ speeches at coconferences. But that was superb by Burnham - full of ideas & policy, inspirational & very emotional, honest & risky. Bold on social care, electoral reform & EU. Yet hard to see sums adding up. Memorable & maybe historic.

From Lewis Goodall from the News Agents podcast

Burnham is the first truly effective political teacher Labour has had since Blair.

From James Heale at the Spectator

Strikingly, of all the standing ovations he received, it was the one on electoral reform which most divided the room, with scores of delegates declining to join in the applause. As one MP remarked afterwards, ‘All those achievements that Andy listed were done by a Labour majority government.’ One suspects plenty will be making their feelings known in private this evening.

From Christopher Hope from GB News

I found it interesting that Andy Burnham did not mention Nigel Farage in his speech, unlike the leader’s speech by Sir Keir Starmer last year (Starmer even called the migrant boats crossing the Channel “Farage boats”). Rather than worry about his opponents he is set out his own plans, which is probably why the members seemed to lap it up so much.

From Patrick Maguire from the Times

The Labour Party will be talking about that speech for years and years and years.

From Jo Coburn from Times Radio

Most powerful conf speech in years. PM @andyburnham first weeks in office characterised by important but relatively small policy announcements. Today dramatic promises on social care, pensions triple lock, electoral reform and rel to EU. The government has its work cut out

From the Substack commentator Sam Freedman

Burham is confirming an iron rule of employment - always try and replace someone who’s been fired for incompetance as you’ll look great in contrast.

We can all argue about Burnham’s speech but it meant girl twin asking me what the triple lock was and boy twin asking me what my preferred form of PR is. So it’s done its work.

From the broadcaster and writer Steve Richards

That was a big speech that dared to make sense of what’s gone wrong and what’s required to put it right.A Burnham has promised the biggest change in 40 years..If he wins the next election he’ll deliver it.But evidently he feels he must win an election before the biggest changes.

From Alastair Campbell, the Rest is Politics podcaster (and former Labour communications chief)

Hard to overstate how significant that speech was in terms of a new policy agenda and political direction for the country. So many big issues on which he has kicked off a national conversation. Also extremely well crafted and well delivered, at times very moving. Apart from the Swinney quote and a ref to johnson and Truss I don’t think he mentioned any of the other parties. They would be wise to think carefully before rushing to judgement on it.

From Robert Colvile, a Sunday Times columnist (and a co-author of the 2019 Tory manifesto

Basically, Burnham has set out in compelling detail what Labour’s 2029 manifesto will look like, but done absolutely nothing to address any of the problems that will arise in the interim (like us running out of money).

Feels weirdly like they’re building towards an early election at precisely the time they’ve ruled one out.

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, says that getting rid of the triple lock will be like a repeat of the winter fuel payments fiasco. He has made the point in an open letter to Andy Burnham.

In a general statement on Burnham’s speech, Davey also accuses him of being too indecisive. He says:

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 …

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.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has welcomed Andy Burnham’s announcement about the triple lock. (See 2.48pm) Although it sounds like he is replacing it with a double lock (pensions rising line with prices or by 2.5% every year, whichever is higher), in fact it is still a triple lock. That’s because, if the amount needed to ensure pensions have still risen in line with average earnings growth since the introduction of the new policy is higher than prices or 2.5%, they will go up by that amount.

The IFS proposed this change to the system. It explains it like this.

The key change is that the new triple lock removes the most expensive and unjustified part of the triple lock: the fact that it permanently ratchets up state pension spending over time. Under the reformed system, pensions will still rise every year and in line with average earnings in the long run, but less quickly than they otherwise would have, and in a less unpredictable way.

The reform will likely generate small savings to the Exchequer in the next parliament, but they will not be enough to fund universal social care. Over time the new triple lock will prevent the state pension being locked into an ever-increasing level of generosity compared to workers’ earnings, thereby generating significant savings in the long run.

In a briefing, the IFS has illustrated this with a rather incomprehensible chart.

Jonathan Cribb, deputy director of the IFS, said:

For years, we at the IFS have been calling for the government to find a better way to increase the state pension than the triple lock. The old triple lock is not a good way to achieve any policy goal. Most importantly, it is both very expensive and very unpredictable. The new, reformed triple lock from 2030–31 is not perfect, but it is a substantial improvement on the status quo. The prime minister should be commended for grasping the nettle and helping to put the state pension system on a more secure and sustainable footing.

Lisa O’Carroll is a senior Guardian correspondent covering post-Brexit issues.

Andy Burnham’s promise to set out a new vision for the UK’s post-Brexit relationship with the EU later this year unleashes the prospects of a dramatic move away from Keir Starmer’s red lines of not rejoining the single market or customs union.

All day yesterday in Liverpool, rumours were swirling that Burnham had some big reveal on the EU in his speech.

Although he didn’t specify what the new relationship would look like, announcing he wants a consultation on options the Labour party can embrace, will be music to the ears of people like Stella Creasy, the head of the Labour Movement for Europe group. After the speech she posted this on social media.

Andy Burnham has spoken the truth that the British people are living every day: Brexit has done more harm than good.

We in @labour4europe warmly welcome the news that the Prime Minister will present to the country the full options for this country’s relationship with the EU.

Everything must be on the table. Removing the red lines on Europe is the essential first step to restoring this country’s place on the world stage.

We stand with this Prime Minister in making the changes that truly live up to the challenges of 2026, not 2016.

Burnham announced he would be looking at all options for the UK’s post Brexit relationship around the next summit with the EU, due to be held at the end of November. (See 3.10pm.)

Although ministers over the weekend, including EU relations minister Hamish Falconer, had insisted Burnham was “ambitious” for his plans with the EU, there were no details of what that looked like. Until today.

Burnham has now raised the prospects that he could blur or even rub out Keir Starmer’s red lines, not joining the single market or customs union, or even go into the next election promising another referendum to rejoin the EU.

Only yesterday Lord Liddle, a Labour grandee and Tony Blair’s former Europe adviser, was telling a panel on the EU in Liverpool that the UK had “got rather stuck” in its negotiations with Brussels.

Keir Starmer, he said, could never really make up his mind about where he wanted the UK to be. He “blew hot and cold” and “the red lines were brought out too often”, Liddle said, referring to Starmer’s insistence the UK would not rejoin the single market or customs union.

If the UK is serious about growth, Liddle said, “the first thing” it has to look at is “the relationship with the EU”.

Kemi Badenoch has accused Andy Burnham of wanting to take Britain back to the 1970s. In her response to Andy Burnham, she said:

Andy Burnham delivered a speech for the Labour party, not the country.

Burnham wants to take Britain back to the 1970s, a time of more government control, more trade union control and no economic growth. There is a reason our country took a different course after that decade.

Nothing Burnham announced today will do anything to fix Britain’s long-term problems. He had no plan to fix our stagnant economy. No plan to fund defence. No plan to sort out the spiralling welfare bill beyond more government schemes.

His proposal to change the triple lock is already falling apart under scrutiny, and it won’t generate enough savings to fund a nationalised care system for another two decades, which means more tax rises are inevitable.

One of the unusual features of Andy Burnham’s speech was that he all but ignored his opponents. The only other leader he mentioned was the SNP leader and Scottish first minister John Swinney, and even then he said he did not want to criticise Swinney. Burnham was became Labour leader in part because Labour MPs concluded the prospect of Nigel Farage becoming PM was appalling enough to justify an emergency defenestration, but Burnham did not mention him today. Or Kemi Badenoch.

Farage, though, has noticed Burnham’s speech. He has issued this response.

By potentially scrapping the triple lock, Andy Burnham will abdicate his responsibility to British pensioners.

Instead of cutting our bloated benefits bill, stopping migrants from accessing benefits, or slashing foreign aid, he’s considering launching an offensive against our elderly.

If he is so desperate to pick a fight with pensioners, he should get on with it, call a general election now, and let the public decide.

Reform UK will always protect our pensioners and maintain the triple lock.

Party conference speeches by a leader are rather weird and antiquated constructions. There is almost no other time in the year when a PM, or an opposition leader, gives a speech uninterrupted for an hour or so. Some are great, some are mediocre, but normally even the better speakers tend to lose the audience halfway through as they rattle through second-order issues included to keep an interest group happy.

Andy Burnham’s speech today was a rare exception. Because it was emotionally engaging, because it was laced with anger and it felt like a speech 15 years in the making, because it had a coherent argument, because it was quite colloquial, and perhaps because Burnham was not standing at a lectern, this was much more interesting and watchable than these speeches usually are. Normally, 40 minutes in, you are desperate for it to end. I would have happily listened to Burnham for another half an hour.

On substance, it was strong – but perhaps not quite as bold as Burnham maintains. His ambitions on social care are in the best traditions of “Go Big” (see 8.40am) and Burnham has shown himself to be a politician confident of his ability to turn public opinion on a big, difficult issue (getting rid of the triple lock). It was bold and inspiring. But whether it turns out to be effective remains to be seen, and if Burnham fails to win this argument, he has got time to trim, or back down.

On PR and Europe, he also staked out brave positions that will attract considerable opposition – not just out in the country, but from some in Labour too. But here he was a bit less specific than on social care and pensions. He implied PR would be in the Labour manifesto, but he just said he would fight the election on a proposal “to change the electoral system so that everyone’s vote counts”, which implied something less ambitious than PR – the alternative vote, perhaps, or PR for an elected Lords? – might end up to be the only option he thinks he can sell to the PLP.

And, on Europe, Burnham implied that he will open a conversation on rejoining. But he was not explicit about that, and then he started talking about “consensus” – which sounded naive because there no subject in British life on which consensus seems less possible than Brexit. One colleague has a theory that Burnham wrote the speech planning to end with a flourish saying rejoining would be an option (like Keir Starmer saying “nobody is ruling out remain” in his 2018 speech) – only to drop the wording at the last minute. There was definitely a bit of a hiatus at the end where the speech had been building up to a big reveal. (See 3.10pm.)

Still, this speech was daring, moving and – potentially – transformational. Burnham has had a good week, and today it got better.

Burnham is now talking about Brexit.

Later this year that will be a UK EU summit, where one of the issues of the agenda will be how we best work together on immigration.

Beyond that, we will work to secure gains for our British industries most harmed by Brexit.

These are important concrete steps but they are not enough.

We will not give Britain the clear path we need into the rest of this century until we decide on a long term relationship with what is still our largest market.

I cannot say to you truthfully that where we are is good enough. Brexit has done more harm than good.

We need to restore a higher level of growth and prosperity for Britain.

So I will take the opportunity around the summit to lay out to you, to lay out to the country, what I believe the different options are for Britain’s long term relationship with our European partners.

And there are different options.

And I will see if we can find consensus around one which will give us clarity about our position and the future of the continent that we live in.

Burnham says John Swinney said he was to be the last PM of the UK. It happened on the day his father died.

He did not respond at the time, and his father would have defended Swinney’s right to say that.

He goes on:

Because I want you to know how it made me feel – utterly determined to prove him wrong.

Whatever its flaws, this country gave my dad a good life.

And he has given his sons opportunities he didn’t get for himself. He recognised that and was grateful for it, and so proud of what Nick, John and I did with them.

If only, if only he had been able to appreciate that moment of the family in Downing Street. The son of a man who failed his 11 plus becoming prime minister.

Burnham is every emotional at this point. At one point he stops for a very long pause. At another he seems to be crying.

Going back to the theme of the union, he says the union may not be perfect, “but it still stands for something worth saving, worth fighting for.”

Burnham announces a commission on electoral reform.

There is one final thing we need to change if our plan for Britain is to succeed – our politics.

Westminster prizes point scoring over problem solving and that is why so many things have gone unfixed for so long.

If we want to change Britain, we need to change ourselves.

I will work as hard as I can to get as much cross-party support for our plan for Britain.

If we can ensure that it will project a message of confidence and stability to markets and the world about Britain’s future direction.

Burnham says the Labour party conference has twice voted for PR. He agrees.

And so I am announcing a new national commission on electoral reform.

I invite all the political parties to be part of its work.

We will contest the next election with a manifesto commitment to change the electoral system so that everyone’s vote counts and everyone’s voice is heard.

Burnham gives more details of his welfare plans.

We will need a fundamental rethink of the welfare system …

We will require people to take up the help [offered them] not leaving those out of work and losing confidence in connection.

This is a different approach to welfare. It is based on a philosophy of social security, a country which invests in people success rather than abandoning them and paying for failure.

A country like that will be much more resilient to the shocks we will undoubtedly face in the rest of this century, and more able to meet its later obligations on defence.

Summing up his care and pension plans, Burnham says:

Pension that rises every year, no care charges and a high quality National Care Service to give peace of mind in later life.

Conference I aren’t going to go out and argue for that a good deal for our pensioners and for older people in the 21st century.

Burnham says he can also assure pensioners they won’t have to pay income tax if they are just on the state pension during this parliament.

I can also confirm today our commitment to ensure that the low-income pensioners won’t be dragged into paying income tax in this parliament.

Burnham turns to the triple lock.

It will stay for this parliament, he says.

That promise will take the state pension to a record high.

From there, in April 2030, we will adjust it.

The state pension will continue to rise every year at least by prices or 2.5%.

And it will hold its value relative to earnings over time so that pensioners will always share in the rising prosperity of the nation.

But this change will generate significant savings which we will use to build up our National Care Service.

Defending the plan, he says:

This change will generate significant savings, which we will use to build up our National Care Service.

Some may not realise it, but older people with nothing more than the state pension or only a little more,can find themselves paying care charges today.

Under my plan, this will no longer happen.

Burnham admits he may have to pay a price for this.

Conference. I won’t pretend some of this won’t be difficult.

I accept I may pay a political price.

But someone has to go through the pain barrier and [rip the plaster off].

Burnham gives more detail of the national care service he wants to set up.

There’s only one real answer. A person-centred, high-quality care service that starts in the home. A system in the best traditions of this party where everyone contributes and everyone is covered. Free at the point of use and no care charges paid out of your basic state pension.

It is about people, not profit, which gives you peace of mind over care needs in later life, which protects people’s homes and their savings and gives you the proper recognition to the care workers we will all need to rely on at some point in our lives ..

Our landmark policy, as significant as the creation of the NHS itself and utterly essential to securing its future: NHS savings from fewer ambulance callouts, A&E admissions and vulnerable people being stuck unnecessarily in hospital.

We will start laying the ground now for the National Care Service and introduce it in the next parliament.

Louise Casey’s review will advise us on exactly how and Yvette [Cooper, the health secretary] and I will seek to build the maximum national consensus around her recommendations. It will be fully funded and not through borrowing.

Burnham is now talking about care.

He says the situation is worse since his gran was in a care home, and had her engagement ring ripped and stolen from her finger.

He says his generation of politicians have been too cowardly to sort out this problem.

He says he watched the carers looking after his father carefully. Care workers are “holding a threadbare system somehow together, yet invisible to the political class of this country.”

He goes on:

I want to speak directly today to our care workers. You are not invisible to me. I see you. I thank you, and I am sorry that my profession has let down yours for so long. I promise you, I won’t leave this job without doing everything I can to change things for you. And I say the same to our wonderful NHS staff.

Burnham says these cuts, announced when he became PM, are a signal of intent.

These things are not everything, but I hope you will see it as a sign. A strong model of our intent to get your bills and fares down.

But there is a limit to what the government can do, he says.

I have to be honest about what the country can afford.

I will stick to our fiscal rules to get borrowing and debt down.

The approach I am outlining today is the responsible one.

If we build a generation of council homes, we will save billions from the housing benefit budget over the decade.

If we get energy bills down, we will better control inflation and support the economy.

If we change the way we support people, we will get more people into work and the welfare bill down, not through crude cuts – that should never be the Labour way - but by investing in people in their success, supporting them to get where they want to be rather than pay for failure as the country does now.

Burnham turns to another essential – water.

Water is a symbol of what has gone wrong with Britain. A service where the shareholders never lose, the public never win.

The water companies have “siphoned out easy money while the public picked up the bill for the sewage in our seas.”

He goes on:

It stinks. I will not allow it.

Today I can confirm Angela Eagle will present a strengthened water bill to parliament. The centrepiece of that bill will be this – the repeal of Margaret Thatcher’s ideological [ban on the public ownership of water] …

It will strengthen public control. Mayors will have new powers to hold water, companies to account …

It will close loopholes used to pay excessive bonuses. Where private companies serve the public interests, we will support them. But the consequences will be clear for those who do not, including taking back control or public ownership.

Burnham says he wants young people to be able to buy a home.

I also want to get back to a Britain where young people starting out are able to buy a home like my mum and dad did, like I did.

Today I say to [young people, including those with student loans] we are bringing back the hope you can have a home of your own.

Burnham says he wants more council housing, because for his family having a home “unlocked the aspiration in my mom and dad for a better life for us all, and has taken us to places we could never have imagined.”

He goes on:

With a good home, everything is possible. Without, it feels like nothing is.

Kids can’t have a good start in life. Families can’t have good health, physical and mental health.

Over a million people are in that position of housing waiting lists, almost exactly the same number as the homes we lost through Right to Buy in the 1980s.

I will not rest until we live in a Britain where everyone has a roof over their head every night, and no one is forced to sleep on the streets.

Burnham gives more detail of how control has been given away.

Economic control diminished by selling off essentials and political control corroded by the hollowing out of councils.

Immigration control weakened by Brexit.

Burnham says he will publish a plan for Britain later this year.

It will sets out how, over ten years, we will make this country work for you again.

Burnham says people want more hope.

But first must come honesty.

He says:

I will say it straight. Britain has been on the wrong path for a long time.

Deindustrialisation, deregulation, privatisation, austerity, Brexit. And what has it given us? A country [governed] for vested interests not in the public interest, with power held in too few hands and too many places left to drift.

Angela Rayner, the housing secretary, said in her speech earlier that the government will introduce a cap on the permission fees that can be charged by landlords. (See 12.17pm.)

Labour has sent out an explanation as to how this will work. It says:

Leaseholders can currently be forced to pay fees to get their landlord’s permission for simple requests like keeping a pet, with no certainty of costs and no clear oversight of the process.

Previous research has shown freeholders charged homeowners an average of £1,422 to enquire about installing double glazing, £887 to change the kitchen units, and £689 to replace the flooring. Some even faced charges for the pleasure of changing the blinds (£526), and installing a new front door (£410) …

A cap on permission fees will also enable a clampdown on administrative fees, where landlords can charge for providing documents on request, such as building safety certificates, or for notifying them of a change in mortgage provider.

A public consultation will be launched on the scope of what should be capped and the amount for each item.

Here is more from what Angela Rayner said about Andy Burnham in her podcast interview earlier. (See 10.14am.) She said it was brave of Burnham to risk all his political capital on social care reform.

It’s brave. We’ve got a prime minister who said: ‘I am OK with burning through all my political capital to the point where it might finish me off, on the basis of my legacy will be something better and different.’

Burnham himself has said that he accepts trying to reform social care may burn up his social capital. But he has not quite said he is prepared to resign if this fails; yesterday he implied that, if he could not win the argument on this, he might have to drop his ambitions.

With Andy Burnham expected to propose electoral reform in his speech later, Labour members will probably soon be downloading this – a paper from the Electoral Reform Society explaining what would have happened in the 2024 general election if it had been fought under a PR system.

This chart shows the actual result under first past the post, and the potential result under four different PR systems – single transferable vote; additional member system with 32% top-up seats; AMS with 50% top-up seats; and a party list system.

The ERS wants PR because first past the post delivered “the most disproportional outcome in UK electoral history” in 2024. This chart illustrates the problem. Labour got 34% of the vote, but won 63% of the seats.

But that means, at the last election, Labour would have been the big loser from PR. And the biggest winner would have Reform UK.

Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader who is now parliamentary leader of Your Party, has said he is strongly opposed to getting rid of the pensions triple lock. He says:

I strongly oppose the removal of the pensions triple lock.

More than 2 million pensioners live in poverty. They will be the ones who suffer the most by taking away pension security.

We must protect the principle of universalism. That is why we opposed cuts to winter fuel - and that is why we must oppose any means-testing of the state pension.

This isn’t about old versus young. This is about the super-rich versus the rest. That’s why we should be taxing wealth to fund social care for all.

Andy Burnham seems to want a national debate about the pensions triple lock. That has gone down well at the Resolution Foundation where, adopting uncharacteristic fighting talk, the thinktank says “its time to stop being polite about the triple lock.”

Pensioner incomes had caught up with non-pensioner incomes BEFORE the triple lock was introduced, thanks to policies like Pension Credit.

It’s time to stop being polite about the triple lock. It’s not fiscally sustainable for the State Pension to grow faster than earnings indefintiely.

State Pension spending accounts for nearly half the projected increase in social security spending by 2029-30

A ‘smoothed’ earnings link would still have left the real value of the Basic State Pension £12.30 per week higher in 2026-27 than in 2011-12.

The Resolution Foundation set out its full case for the prosecution against the triple lock in this paper in June.

Rayner said the measures she was announcing to make it easier for councils to tackle homelessness would involve getting rid of “Tory barriers” holding back local leaders.

She said:

For those homes that sit idle and unused, we will make it easier for councils to bring these homes back into use for desperate families who need them.

Sweeping away Tory barriers that hampered our local leaders from taking action. This is why I am also announcing more powers for local leaders to tackle homelessness and to ensure that they have the homes that their communities need.

Our councils will be able to refer local homeless households to other social housing providers to reduce reliance on temporary accommodation.

We will stop social homes from being lost when providers sell them by making it easier for councils to buy, and at the same time, we will introduce a new duty on public services to work together to provide a wraparound support to prevent homelessness before families reach crisis point.

When we say that we stand for more public control of housing, this is what we mean: giving power to those who know their areas and local people best, and who ultimately are accountable when families are left without a secure home.

Angela Rayner, the housing secretary, is addressing the conference now.

She got a huge round of applause as she arrived, and she started with the words: “It’s good to be back.”

At last year’s conference she was out of government, having had to resign as deputy PM over a tax mistake.

Claire Ward, the East Midlands mayor, told the Labour conference that she and her fellow mayors were delighted to see Andy Burnham move from running Greater Manchester to being PM. In her speech, she said:

Labour mayors have just had an exceptionally busy summer. Because one of our former colleagues, you might know him, got a new job and he’s asked us to help him rewire the state so that his promise to create growth in every postcode and hope in every heart could be delivered.

And honestly the moment that Andy Burnham became our prime minister, well, it was like seeing the shop steward become the chief executive.

Ward sounded like someone who has taken on the role of shop steward herself. Rather than just talk about her region, she highlighted the work being done by all the Labour mayors. Here’s an extract

When power is in the right place it is easier to build a shared vision for how things could be. But more than that: it is easier to prioritise as your communities would prioritise. Tracy Brabin, mayor of West Yorkshire, she knows what this feels like.

She is building the Weaver Network, an integrated transport network with an ambition to bring trams into the fabric of the region by the late 2030s. And Tracy isn’t pushing for trams because central government has told her to , she is pushing for that because that is what her region needs and she will take risks to get it there.

And this is not just about hard infrastructure. Look at Kim McGuinness, mayor of the North East. As soon as she took office, she established a £29m child poverty reduction unit. Investment into childcare grants to parents trying to find work, investment into baby boxes across the north east, investment into a programme of grants to pregnant women in poverty. It is as important as any investment into hard infrastructure.

Or Oliver Coppard, mayor of South Yorkshire. And on the one hand, he is investing into the South Yorkshire People’s Network and on the other, he is setting up the Mayor’s Little Big Book Club - a new reading network for South Yorkshire.

Ward ended her speech by saying even if there was some “discomfort” in devolving power locally, it would be worth it.

I can’t promise you that power shifting to places will feel comfortable. I can’t promise you that it will happen at the same pace in all places.

But I can promise you that the discomfort means that we are heading in the right direction, because it means we are sharing these highest of stakes with the people we serve. It means we are accomplices in their success.

Lisa O’Carroll is a senior Guardian correspondent.

Bertie Ahern, the co-architect of the 1998 peace deal, has urged parties in Northern Ireland not to return to the “tribal past”.

His words chime with a call by Chris Bryant at Labour conference this morning. (See 10.27am.) Bryant said:

The situation in Drumcree is tense.

Nobody, nobody, nobody wants Northern Ireland to return to the 1990s. That’s not going be easy. As the last few days have shown, it’s really easy to stir up a grievance, much harder to calm it down.

Bryant will fly back to Belfast shortly, missing Andy Burnham’s speech, to attend urgent talks with parties in Northern Ireland over Drumcree, where a number of Orange Order members remain intent on a parade down nationalist Garvaghy Road.

Efforts are also underway to find an international mediator, Ireland’s foreign minister, Helen McEntee, said today.

The initial priority will be to break the deadlock but the medium term aim is to ensure Stormont, which is in danger of collapse, survives the crisis.

McEntee this morning said it was most likely an international mediator would be needed to break the Drumcree deadlock.

Ahern, a former taoiseach (Irish PM) told RTE it was “regrettable” if parties saw electoral capital in stirring sectarianism ahead of next May’s Stormont elections. He said:

If the parties believe, for an election in six or eight months time, there’s some short-term gain of winning a few votes based on going back to the tribal past, I would really caution against that.

They will regret that by the end of next year.

Ahern said if the Drumcree criss wasn’t solved quickly it would be “a disaster” for Northern Ireland and bringing Stormont down would serve no one.

Greenpeace UK has given a qualified welcome to news that Andy Burnham will use his speech this afternoon to announce GB Grid, a government-backed body to invest in the electricity grid.

Doug Parr, Greenpeace’s policy director, said:

This is a welcome step to grapple with a problem that has plagued the green energy sector for years. Renewable energy providers urgently need an improved grid to get cheap, homegrown power flowing around the country. Greater public control to drive the transition to clean energy looks essential.

While public investment in the grid is good news, £4bn is not a game-changer when Ofgem estimates that upgrades will cost £70bn over the next five years.

Given the money will come from GB Energy’s existing budget, there’s also a risk it detracts from support for emerging technologies such as floating offshore wind and long term storage.

Andy Burnham is expected to announce that he will push ahead with plans for electoral reform in his first conference speech as Labour leader, in the latest sign that he intends to radically transform the UK’s political system. Pippa Crerar has the story.

In his speech, Chris Bryant also joked about some of the coverage of his appointment as Northern Ireland secretary. He said one article had been headlined: “Will colourful Sir Chris Bryant shake up Stormont?”

Bryant went on:

I don’t know what they meant by colourful. Oh you can work it out can you? Just for the avoidance of doubt, I am ever so slightly homosexual.

Bryant seemed to be referring to this article in the Belfast Telegraph.

Northern Ireland has not always been one of the most enlightened parts of the UK when it comes to gay rights. The late Ian Paisley, the DUP leader who ended up first minister, once led a campaign to Save Ulster from Sodomy.

In his speech Chris Bryant included a long passage thanking people who contributed to keeping the peace in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, including the leaders from all parties who worked to end the violence. This sort of leadership was needed in every generation, he said.

He went on:

It’s why I have this warning for Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch. They say they’ll bin the European convention on human rights. They’ve clearly never read the Good Friday agreement. Or maybe they don’t even care about it.

Conference, I promise you this. We will not dump the European convention on human rights. We will stand by it.

The Good Friday agreement is based on the assumption that the UK remains party to the ECHR. Reform UK and the Tories would not be able to go ahead with their plans to leave it without some sort of GFA renegotiation – which potentially might be very problematic.

Chris Bryant, the Northern Ireland secretary, has addressed the Labour conference. He started by saying:

I had wanted to stand up here and boast about the news that Northern Ireland has the fastest economic growth of anywhere in the UK, and the lowest unemployment.

I wanted to shout out that Northern Ireland is being transformed. A thousand new jobs at Bank of America, we’re building drones for Ukraine, wings for Airbus and 30% of the world’s commercial aircraft seats.

We excel at cyber, AI, life sciences, music and film and high-end television.

We produce a fifth of the UK’s eggs and a 10th of all our food, and we’re open to business like nowhere else on earth, with unique dual access to two enormous markets, the UK and the European Union.

Our potential is enormous. We just need to harness it.

But instead he had to talk about the crisis at Drumcree, he said.

He said that the government would “always go the extra mile for peace” and that he would be in Northern Ireland this afternoon doing that. He urged both sides in the dispute to “double down on compromise”.

Angela Rayner, the housing secretary, has apparently confirmed that Andy Burnham will float the prospect of getting rid of the pensions triple lock to help fund the creation of an NHS-style care service.

Asked about the prospect on Sky’s Electoral Dysfunction podcast, Rayner said that Burnham was “absolutely right to start the conversation” and that he was being “brave”.

Rayner also said she thought people would be open to being persuaded by Burnham that this proposal was a good one. She said:

The high principle on this is that people have paid in all their lives. They are willing, I think, to look at that.

What they don’t want is what they consider to be, quite frankly, incompetent politicians that are going to take something from us to fill a black hole.

If they can see that this is going to improve and move it into a way that delivers, so you’ve got a retail offer of ‘that’s no longer fit for purpose, but we can either do something for the younger generation because of the intergenerational disparities, or something on social care or whatever’, I think they would be willing to have a conversation.

Sharon Graham, the Unite general secretary, restated her opposition to getting rid of the pensions triple lock (see 8.40am) in an interview on the Today programme this morning.

She said:

When we met with Andy [Burnham] this week, it certainly wasn’t mentioned.

But I do think that it’s important that Labour make sure that working-class people know that they’re on their side, and this would be a direction of travel that would say the opposite to that.

Asked whether the lock should be reformed to fund social care, Graham said:

What I understood the national care service to be was a universal benefit: everybody paid in and everybody gets out, and that is what actually the principle of that is.

Going to a group of people who are getting around £12,500 a year in order to pay for it to take away their security is wrong.

I think it’s morally wrong.

Haroon Siddique is the Guardian’s legal affairs correspondent.

Ed Miliband has said it was never anyone’s intent to criminalise “elderly people, vicars and grannies” who have been arrested for supporting Palestine Action.

Since Palestine Action became the first direct action group to be banned under the Terrorism Act in July last year, more than 3,700 people are believed to have been arrested for alleged support of the proscribed organisation. They include 82 arrested at a demonstration outside the Labour party conference on Sunday.

Later on Sunday, Miliband was challenged by two activists over the arrests while he was having a meal in Pizza Express in the city centre.

In an interview on LBC radio, Andrew Marr asked him about that encounter:

I can’t believe in your heart of hearts that you really think proscribing Palestine Action with all those elderly people and vicars and grannies and so on as a terrorist organisation was a sensible political …

Miliband interjected:

I don’t think anyone’s intent was to have those people criminalised. But obviously the supreme court has got to look at this issue and obviously it’s something we keep looking at as government.

On 4 and 5 November, the supreme court is due to hear a legal challenge to the ban on Palestine Action, arguing that it represents a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of speech and freedom of protest.

A spokesperson for Defend Our Juries, which organised the civil disobedience campaign against the ban, said:

We welcome the foreign secretary’s honesty on this matter. He has finally admitted that it wasn’t the government’s intention to criminalise people for peacefully protesting against the genocide and the proscription, let alone to treat them as terrorists.

Basically he’s acknowledged that the government didn’t properly think the proscription through and that it’s had a disproportionate impact on the right to free speech. You’d think that leaves the government in an impossible position for defending the proscription before the supreme court.

We gladly accept the offer Ed Miliband made in Pizza Express to have a conversation with us.

The pensions triple lock may not be the only policy area where Andy Burnham triggers a “hope comes from honesty” policy row this afternoon. Recently he refused to rule out proposing rejoining the EU in Labour’s manifesto and, in a story for the Independent, David Maddox and Athena Stavrou report:

Ministers have told The Independent that the prime minister is building the case to put rejoin in the manifesto at the next election. They have said it is now a question of “how it is expressed in the manifesto, rather than if” …

One senior minister told The Independent that “the mood has completely changed on this subject.”

They added: “There is a lot of momentum around rejoining again. The economic data is there and we are feeling more relaxed about talking about Brexit as being a failure.”

While many in the Labour party would be delighted by this proposal, it would not be universally popular. At a Politico fringe event on Sunday, Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, was very negative about the prospect. He said:

I think we can frankly get more from what we need for our people, for our businesses here, by pragmatically looking at this through a trade lens. How can we improve that trade relationship, rather than these constitutional questions, which, frankly, you know, they cause a lot of uncertainty for business.

Reynolds was even sceptical about joining a customs union with the EU, saying:

Look at the arrangements we’ve already got. You don’t add a lot more to it through a customs union ... and you’d be having to, you know, frankly, accept a whole range of alignment on regulatory issues.

Asked if he wanted the UK to rejoin the EU in his lifetime, Reynolds said:

What will Europe be in the future? I mean, there are clearly very challenging politics in Germany. It’s very clear that the French presidential election could be different. I honestly don’t know if you will evolve in one direction or the other. So I can’t really give you an answer to that.

Sharon Graham, the Unite leader, is another senior Labour figure opposed to rejoining.

Lucy Powell, the deputy Labour leader, has been doing a media round this morning. In interviews, she stressed that Labour is committed to keeping the pensions triple lock for the duration of this parliament. But she did not deny reports that Andy Burnham might use his speech to suggest that it should go in the next parliament. (See 8.40am.)

She told Sky News:

We are committed to the triple lock. It’s in our manifesto. The triple lock has really delivered for pensioners, in this country, over the course of this parliament …

I don’t know what Andy’s going to say about that today, but I know that what he’s talking about is this big conversation about solving these big problems, but being really honest with people that they come at a cost.

You can’t just solve the social care crisis without having the big conversations about how you’re going to do this.

Good morning. The day after Donald Trump won his first US presidential election in 2016, Ed Miliband (at that point just an ex Labour leader) went on the World at One and gave an astute assessment of the lessons to be learnt from Trump by progressives. Trump was offering “big solutions”, he said – a theory he later fleshed out in a book called “Go Big”. Jeremy Corbyn was Labour leader at the time, and he certainly offered voters a “Go Big” vision – but for various reasons he could not persuade the electorate. But today a more mainstream Labour leader is also going to embrace “Go Big”.

According to the Labour party’s overnight briefing, Andy Burnham is going to use his first conference speech as leader to set out what he will describe as “a more serious prospectus for Britain than people have been offered in a generation”.

Burnham will say:

We can’t carry on as we are. Politics-as-usual has taken Britain backwards. More of the same isn’t good enough and isn’t going to get us where we need to be.

According to the Labour briefing, Burnham will say this will require “honest conversation” with the public and taking on the difficult issues that have been ignored for too long by Westminster, including social care, youth unemployment, and the need for greater public control of energy, water and housing. He will say:

Hope comes from honesty and from saying the things politicians usually avoid.

As Kiran Stacey, Jessica Elgot and Pippa Crerar report in the Guardian splash, Burnham will take his first major step towards putting Britain’s utility companies into public control when he announces a new government-backed body to invest in the electricity grid.

But, for most of the media, it looks as if the story of the day will be another “Go Big” gamble by Burnham. On Sunday he revealed for the first time that he wants to fight the election on a colossal promise – a pledge to set up an NHS-style care service, with care free at the point of delivery. He did not say how this would be funded, but over the past 24 hours Downing Street has done nothing to quash speculation that part of the proposal will involve getting rid of the pension triple lock. This is one of the sacred cows of British politics, conventionally viewed as untouchable (even though in private many politicians from all parties agree with the view of almost all reputable economists, which is that in the long run its costs are unsustainable.)

Burnham does not seem likely to say he will definitely fight the next election on a proposal to get rid of the triple lock. (Labour promised in its manifesto to keep it for this parliament, and Burnham is sticking to that.) “Government sources have suggested Burnham would signal his willingness to review the policy, but stop short of a pledge to scrap it altogether,” we report today in our splash. So it looks as if Burnham will launch a pre-election debate, in the hope that he can persuade the public that axing an expensive and badly-targeted perk for pensioners is a price worth paying for transformative reform to adult social care. In his LBC phone-in yesterday, Burnham accepted there was a chance voters might just say no.

One of the voters saying no is Sharon Graham, general secretary of Unite, one of the most powerful unions in the Labour party. Asked about getting rid of the triple lock, she told the Times:

I think it would be almost electoral suicide. Morally, I just don’t think it’s the right thing.

We’re the lowest in the G7 in terms of how much we spend on pensions. I think that’s an embarrassment, quite frankly, because we’re one of the six richest economies in the world. I think it would be an absolute disaster, it would send completely the wrong message. I cannot understand why we keep going back to pensioners.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: The conference opens. The first speaker in a debate on power to communities is Chris Byrant, the Northern Ireland secretary. Claire Ward, the mayor of the East Midlands, is also speaking.

10am: Lucy Powell, the deputy leader, speaks at a “what can Labour learn from its members” fringe event. Other ministers speaking at fringe events this morning include Miatta Fahnbulleh, the energy secretary, and Kanishka Narayan, the AI minister.

Around 11.40am: Angela Rayner, the housing secretary, addresses the conference.

2pm: Andy Burnham gives his speech to the conference.

5pm: Bridget Phillipson, the Labour chair, and Alan Milburn, the former cabinet minister who has chaired a review on Neets, speak at a Tony Blair Institute fringe event.

Given that it will be a big day in British politics, we will have comments open later for a few hours. I do look at comments when they are open, but I can’t read them all and if you want to contact me, please email politics.live@theguardian.com. You can use this email to flag up corrections, comments for publication, questions or complaints.