Andy Burnham has signalled that pensioners could face changes to their benefits as he seeks to fund Labour’s shift towards a more left-wing agenda.

Speaking at the Labour conference in Liverpool for the first time since becoming leader, the Prime Minister said the party’s next election manifesto would pledge to abolish the state pension “triple lock”.

Reducing the protection on pension payments could deliver savings to help establish an NHS-style social care service, a policy estimated to cost around £18billion annually. Mr Burnham said he would have his late father Roy in mind as he argues for what he described as a “new settlement”.

The proposal received cheers from delegates inside the conference hall, but has already triggered anger among trade unions and unease within the Cabinet. Opponents have warned that targeting pensioners could amount to “electoral suicide”.

The Prime Minister also outlined his ambition for a government with a far greater role in managing strategic parts of the economy, echoing the interventionist approach associated with the 1970s.

Mr Burnham argued that Britain had followed “the wrong path for a long time”, blaming a combination of deindustrialisation, deregulation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit.

He said his aim was to restore a sense of “hope”, drawing comparisons with Clement Attlee’s Labour government elected in 1945. The Prime Minister promised a major expansion of council housing, although he did not explain how it would be financed, and said Right to Buy rules would be removed for newly built homes.

“We built the common good. Or at least we did until the 1980s,” Mr Burnham told activists. “Then the common wealth created for the many was suddenly treated as an opportunity for the few.”

“Homes. Water. Energy. Transport. Care. They were broken up and sold off.”

In a strongly socialist appeal to voters, Mr Burnham said the political Right had surrendered too much control, arguing that the sale of essential services had weakened the country’s economic power.

He also said political influence had been damaged by the erosion of local councils, while Britain’s ability to manage immigration had been weakened by Brexit.

“Later this year, we will publish our plan for Britain,” he said. “It will explain how, over the next 10 years, we will make this country work for you again.”

He promised greater public control over essential services, alongside more power for individuals and communities to shape their own priorities.

Other major announcements and moments from the Prime Minister’s speech included:

Mr Burnham said the proposed social care service would be free when people need it, meaning no care costs would be taken from an individual’s basic state pension.

‘We will start laying the ground now for the National Care Service and introduce it in the next Parliament,’ he said.

‘Louise Casey’s review will advise us on exactly how and Yvette and I will seek to build the maximum consensus around her recommendations.

‘It will be fully funded, and not through borrowing.

‘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.

‘I am being honest. We promised in our manifesto to keep the Triple Lock unchanged throughout this Parliament.

‘I will honour that promise. That will take the state pension to a record high.

‘But from 2030 we will adjust it. From then the state pension will continue to rise every year at least by prices or 2.5 per cent.

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

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

He added: ‘A state pension that rises every year. No care charges.

‘And a high-quality National Care Service to give peace of mind in later life.

‘A new settlement for older people and their families.

‘In memory of my dad and out of respect for everyone who cared for him.’

However, the premier is already facing Labour fury over ‘suicidal’ moves to fund at least part of his free-spending prospectus by scrapping the state pension ‘triple lock’. 

Unions warned it was effectively ‘picking the pockets’ of the elderly, with signs of disquiet stretching into the Cabinet.

The ratchet – which means payments go up by the highest out of inflation, earnings and 2.5 per cent – was introduced by the Coalition Government.

The step would be particularly controversial as the premier has stubbornly dismissed the idea of cuts to benefits such as PIP, instead making the case for reforms to get people into work.

In an unusual move, Mr Burnham pulled his most senior ministers out of fringe events for a briefing on his ideas just hours before he was due to speak. 

Mr Burnham’s speech was heavy on rhetoric but contained relatively little immediate concrete action. He suggested that he would need time to bring about fundamental change, saying: ‘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 a responsible one.’

Mr Burnham again dismissed calls for outright cuts to benefits, instead arguing that he can invest to bring down costs.

‘If we build a new generation of council homes, we will save billions from housing benefit over the decade,’ he said.

‘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 the welfare bill down.

‘Not through crude cuts. That should never be the Labour way.

‘But by investing in people’s success, supporting them to get where they want to be, rather than paying for failure.’

Two months after ousting Keir Starmer, Mr Burnham will say he needs to give the country ‘hope again’ with ‘less drift and more direction’.

CHECK THIS OUT: Two California Schools Rank Among America’s Top 10 Private High Schools

Echoing the conference slogan of ‘Hope Again’, Mr Burnham will tell party members that ‘hope comes from honesty and from saying the things politicians usually avoid’.

Making another attempt to blame Thatcher and ‘Neoliberalism’ for the Government’s problems, he will condemn the ‘flawed thinking of the last 40 years’. 

He will also announce a new publicly-owned ‘Great British Grid’ in a bid to bring UK energy costs down in line with European nations within a decade.

The PM 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.’

Mr Burnham will pledge to take power out of the hands of ‘vested interests’ give the public sector ‘more control of the basics so that we can make it more functional again’.

Renationalisation of the railways is already under way, but the PM will signal he wants further government control of other sectors, including water, energy and housing.

He is expected to make clear the Government is ready to put Thames Water in a ‘special administration scheme’ if a bailout plan fails, effectively taking public ownership of the debt-laden giant.

Cabinet ministers have been refusing to commit to the triple lock beyond this Parliament – although they insist Labour’s pledge to keep it until the next election stands.

On a tour of broadcast studios before the speech, Labour Deputy Leader Lucy Powell said only that Mr Burnham was prepared to take on difficult issues.

Housing Secretary Angela Rayner suggested pensioners would be willing to take the hit if they know social care will get better.

However, Bridget Phillipson sounded a much more negative note, suggesting that curbing state pensions could look like intergeneration warfare. 

The backdrop to Mr Burnham’s big conference moment is an increasingly stormy economic situation, with the Middle East crisis causing chaos on energy markets.

As he grapples with the books for a Budget on October 28, Chancellor John Healey warned delegates yesterday that there could not be a spending spree like under Tony Blair after 1997.

Inflation, slowing growth and surging debt costs have been eroding Mr Healey’s ‘headroom’ against the Government’s fiscal rules, meaning he is likely to need spending cuts or tax rises. The former would be fiercely resisted by Labour MPs. 

YouGov polling released today suggests that 64 per cent of Labour members think that taxes and Government spending are too low. That is out of step with the wider public, where just 21 per cent hold the same opinion.

In a potential boon for Mr Burnham internally, pensions are the most popular area for spending cuts among Labour activists, with 32 per cent saying that is where they could find savings if necessary.

However, among Britons more generally only 8 per cent would cut pensions, with 60 per cent preferring overseas aid and 42 per cent saying welfare. 

Labour sources said full-scale nationalisation of the major utilities is unlikely at this stage because of the enormous cost.

But ministers are exploring other ways to intervene in the market to give the Government greater control, including appointing elected mayors to lead regional oversight boards.

Mr Burnham has said social care reforms will not be in place until after the next election, with Whitehall troubleshooter Baroness Casey carrying out a review. 

The prospect of downgrading the triple lock sparked an immediate backlash from Labour’s allies. 

Unite general secretary Sharon Graham told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘Instead of going and trying to pick the pocket of pensioners, we need to move over to the other side of the equation and look at things like wealth taxes, way before we try to stop something like the triple lock…’

The Unite general secretary added: ‘When we met with Andy 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, Ms 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.’

However, Ms Rayner told a live recording of Sky’s Electoral Dysfunction podcast that Mr Burnham was ready to put himself on the line. His previous attempt to reform social care during Gordon Brown’s premiership was slammed as a ‘death tax’.

Ms Rayner said: ‘We’ve got a prime minister who said ‘I am okay with burning through all my political capital to the point where it might finish me off on the basis that my legacy will be something better and different’.’

The Cabinet minister suggested pensioners could be sympathetic if they knew where the money was going instead.

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

‘But 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 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 they would be willing to have a conversation.’

Ms Powell, who is also the Education Secretary, said the party was committed to the triple lock until the next election – but would not go any further.

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 think we’re going to see (the) state pension rising by about £2,000-a-year significantly, and that’s really important, so pensioners watching your show today can know that their income is secure and will continue to rise 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.

‘They do 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.’

Both the Tories and Reform urged Mr Burnham to target the benefits bill.

Tory chairman Kevin Hollinrake said: ‘If Andy Burnham wants to be honest with the British people, he must admit that Labour’s tax rises have crushed businesses, killed jobs and hammered family finances – all so Labour can give more handouts to Benefits Street.

‘Andy Burnham has the chance to show whether he’s got the backbone to bring the welfare bill down and stand up to his welfare–obsessed MPs.

‘Failure to do so will prove he’s just a people pleaser who can’t take decisions in the national interest, and that Labour really are the Welfare Party.’

Reform’s Treasury spokesman Robert Jenrick said: ‘It’s frankly outrageous that Burnham is considering scrapping the triple lock when we’re wasting tens of billions of pounds on nonsense. 

‘Instead he should slash the benefits bill, foreign aid and net zero subsidies. It’s only fair that we have the backs of those who have worked hard their entire lives.’ 

Dave Grohl has faced a wave of online criticism after appearing with his wife, Jordyn Blum, at the MTV Video Music Awards, amid the love-child and infidelity scandal that placed their marriage under intense scrutiny.

The 57-year-old Foo Fighters frontman attended Sunday night’s ceremony in Los Angeles with Blum, 50, as the couple presented a united image on the red carpet.

During the appearance, Grohl gestured toward the cameras, apparently encouraging Jordyn to look over and smile. He then walked away from the red carpet, with his wife following behind.

The moment quickly drew attention online, with viewers taking to social media to criticize the singer’s body language.

‘Treating her like a fan asking for a selfie,’ one person wrote.

‘When a man walks in front of you…’ another commenter posted, while someone else added: ‘The way he walks off and leaves her.’

‘I can’t believe he’s walking ahead of her?!’ another critic wrote.

Other social media users focused on Grohl’s thinning hair, while some revisited the cheating scandal that had previously made headlines.

‘He deserves that bald patch,’ one person commented.

‘It’s okay, he’s balding now at the back of his head. Karma is working its magic LOL,’ a second person added.

‘How could he cheat on her? She’s absolutely stunning,’ another commenter said.

Grohl and Blum married in 2003 and have three daughters: Violet, 20, Harper, 17, and Ophelia, 12.

In September 2024, Grohl became the subject of widespread controversy after publicly revealing that he had fathered another daughter ‘outside of my marriage.’

MORE STORY: LSU Frat Pledges Allegedly Waterboarded and Forced to Chug Milk

The following February, reports identified the mother of his youngest child as Jennifer Young, a rock ‘n’ roll fan who was originally from Florida and is now based in Los Angeles.

By that September, a source told People that Blum had ‘forgiven’ Grohl and that the couple were once again ‘very happy.’

They projected an image of marital harmony on Sunday’s red carpet at the Peacock Theater in downtown Los Angeles, where Blum proudly wore Grohl’s ring. 

The couple also brought along two of their daughters to the red carpet, with the foursome exuding familial bliss on the red carpet.

Grohl wrapped an arm tightly around his wife and flashed a broad smile while Blum, who matched him in head-to-toe black, grinned at his side.

He opted for classic rocker chic, throwing a fashionably rumpled leather jacket over his turtleneck and rounding off the look with jeans and leather shoes.

Meanwhile, Blum’s dress was skintight over the waist, emphasising her enviably svelte frame, while featuring a skirt that billowed outwards.

Although Grohl has admitted that the child he sired out of wedlock is a girl, he has otherwise afforded her a degree of privacy by refraining from disclosing her name.

However, the little girl’s mother has publicly divulged that the baby was born on August 1, 2024, the month before Grohl took the news public, via Page Six.

Donald Trump’s ban on Canadian whisky and other alcoholic drinks took effect Tuesday, cutting off roughly $800 million in alcohol imports from America’s northern neighbor.

The unprecedented blockade marks the latest escalation in a trade war between the United States and one of its closest allies. The dispute has already triggered steep tariffs and prompted Ontario and other Canadian provinces to remove American liquor from store shelves.

Most US drinkers, however, are unlikely to feel the impact immediately. Distributors built up supplies ahead of Trump’s deadline, while whiskey and liqueurs shipped in containers holding more than four liters are not covered by the ban.

Major brands such as Crown Royal may also avoid significant disruption. According to CNN, the company already ships its spirit in bulk across the border and bottles the products sold to American consumers at US facilities.

“It’s really unfortunate our industry has gotten pulled into this,” Chris Swonger, president and CEO of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, told the outlet.

“We American distillers export around the world. We don’t want tariffs applied to our products and we don’t want tariffs applied to our imports. We like to compete by sip and taste, not tariffs.”

In Niagara Falls, New York, a liquor-store manager less than five miles from the Canadian border said the policy had left him both confused and concerned.

“We have a lot of Canadian customers and a lot of Canadian liquor. This is not good for business,” the manager, who spoke anonymously, told CNN. “People have freedom to drink, right?”

Trump dismissed the concerns hours before the restrictions began, insisting that Canadian officials “call us all the time” and would agree to scrap their tariffs within weeks. Carney, Canada’s prime minister, has not publicly relented to Trump’s demands.

The trade conflict began in March 2025, after several Canadian provinces removed American wine and spirits from their shelves in response to Trump’s threatened tariffs. US spirits exports to Canada subsequently fell by 70 percent.

Amid the worsening dispute, Trump responded on September 8 by signing five proclamations targeting Canadian alcohol, dairy products and motorcycles, with the measures taking effect on September 29.

RELATED: UK Set for Unseasonably Warm Spell Before Weather Bomb Hits

The US ban began on the same day that Canada’s retaliatory tariffs on $27.6 billion worth of American goods came into force.

The White House accused Canada of discriminating against American commerce and invoked a Depression-era trade law to justify the action. The ban replaces the 50 percent tariffs previously imposed on the targeted goods.

Trade experts have described the move as a sharp break from established policy. Inu Manak of the Peterson Institute for International Economics called an import ban against a US ally “unprecedented and a major deviation from US trade policy.”

Manak said Carney appeared in no hurry to reach an agreement before the US midterm elections. She also noted that Canada imposed its alcohol restrictions only after Trump first threatened tariffs.

Trump is relying on the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, an infamous law from the Great Depression era, to enforce the restrictions.

Swonger, who leads the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, said the industry had been caught in the broader dispute. “We like to compete by sip and taste, not tariffs,” he warned.

Trump’s booze ban is the latest development as US-Canada relations have taken a toxic turn after the president signed an executive order in late August renaming Lake Ontario to ‘Lake America’. 

At the start of his second term nearly two years ago, Trump used the same strategy to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America.

Carney vowed Canadians would call it Lake Ontario ‘now and always,’ while Ontario Premier Doug Ford declared it would stay Lake Ontario to Canadians and the rest of the world.

The move came after trade talks collapsed, and roughly a week after Trump imposed 50 percent tariffs on nearly $20 billion worth of Canadian goods.

Canada struck back with matching levies on roughly $20 billion worth of American dairy and seafood, as well as appliances and clothing. 

Presley Gerber, who died at just 27, was only 16 when he walked his first runway at Moschino’s Los Angeles Resort show.

He had signed with IMG Models the previous year and, alongside his sister Kaia Gerber, had already appeared in the 2015 issue of the prestigious CR Fashion Book. In 2016, he also featured in a Calvin Klein campaign.

Looking back at those photographs now, he seems impossibly young—almost a baby.

Yet the modelling industry is no environment for a child.

During my years as a celebrity publicist, I worked with some of the fashion world’s biggest names, including Naomi Campbell, Tyra Banks, Molly Sims and Petra Nemcova. I spent years backstage at runway shows, accompanying models on photo shoots and attending parties with them. The industry’s glamour can be spellbinding and intoxicating—but it can also be deeply dangerous.

At a fashion party in New York in 2010, I watched a world-famous model snap her fingers before a bowl of cocaine appeared, delivered as casually as sugar for coffee.

The bowl circulated around the room. Some women dipped their fingernails into the powder, while others used straws. Most disturbing of all were the young people present, mixing with powerful agents, photographers and wealthy men. The pressure to participate in destructive behaviour was immense.

There was also a disturbing sense of worldly degradation.

In 2005, I was backstage with Naomi at New York City’s Lexington Avenue Armory. Tyra was preparing for her final runway appearance before taking a lengthy retirement, while models changed clothes and stood around barely dressed. Wealthy businessmen moved in and out of the area with astonishing ease.

I frequently saw Jeffrey Epstein backstage at Victoria’s Secret fashion shows. He had already acquired a reputation for making people uncomfortable, although we had no idea then how extensive his depravity was.

MORE STORY: Pantry Item Recalled Over “Pest Contaminant” Warning

Bodies were openly displayed. Flesh seemed to be the only currency that counted.

During a magazine-cover shoot at Chelsea Piers, a striking male model was hired to dance around one of my leading female clients. When I stepped outside the studio to answer a phone call, one of the young men followed me.

He could not have been older than 21, yet he offered me sex in exchange for an introduction to Jennifer Lopez. I was devastated. This was a beautiful young man who had come to believe his body could be bartered for opportunity.

Those experiences took place years ago, but a friend who until recently ran one of the world’s leading agencies says little has changed.

“People like to pretend the business cleaned itself up. It hasn’t—they’ve simply become better at concealing it,” my source said. “The drugs, the predators and the pressure to be impossibly thin are all still there. The difference is that everyone now knows what they are expected to say in public.”

I can only imagine the pressure Presley Gerber faced. According to one fashion source, he struggled with comparisons to his mother, Cindy, and to his sister, Kaia.

“Presley never felt good enough,” said the owner of a leading agency. “He was always living in the shadow of his mother and sister. People assumed he received opportunities because of his parents, and that affected him enormously.”

None of this explains Presley’s death nor does it attempt to explain away the decision to indulge in dangerous behaviors. But it does offer some context. The modeling business can be psychologically brutal.

I’ll never forget what supermodel Iman, who was supporting Campbell’s inaugural fashion show during New York Fashion Week in 2005, once told me about the event.

‘They do it in a tent because it’s a circus.’

She wasn’t kidding.