Change is on the cards as PM Keir Starmer resigns and Andy Burnham edges closer to No.10. Peter Ingle considers what it may mean for dentistry.
In a 40-year career, a typical GDP might place 20,000 composites, 4,500 full-coverage crowns, and work under 10 different prime ministers. Actually, make that 11, now that Keir Starmer has resigned - with six of them in the last decade alone.
As for health ministers, the churn has been such that even Copilot was unsure when asked how many there had been since a particular year. It came up with: ‘the UK has had around 22–25 people serve as Secretary of State for Health, depending on whether you count short-lived title changes and reorganisations.’
After all, who remembers John Moore? June 1987 to July 1988, for those looking for obscure quiz questions. GDPUK readers will be more familiar with the incumbent from June 2009 to May 2010 - Andrew Murray Burnham MP.
So, what might his expected arrival at No 10 mean for dentistry in the UK?
First, there is the disruption factor. Until the changeover is complete, meaningful ministerial activity is likely to be paused. Civil servants, too, may not be in a hurry to implement plans that could soon be dropped or reversed.
One downside of personnel changes is that new ministers need to be brought up to speed on the key issues facing their departments. Organisations such as the British Dental Association (BDA) may find themselves dealing with a new minister and having to build relationships while setting out dentistry’s particular challenges.
As it happens, Health Secretary James Murray was only appointed in May 2026. If the new prime minister (PM) decides to replace him, there may be little accumulated dental knowledge or insight to lose.
However, Minister of State for Care Stephen Kinnock - under whom much of the work on recent NHS contract changes was done - is a different story. He is a known quantity to the BDA and his departure could be disruptive in further negotiations.
Even before Keir Starmer’s resignation, it was clear that the challenges of ‘fixing’ NHS dentistry were beginning to exhaust ministers, and the issue appeared to be slipping down the to-do list. As the BDA recently observed, the consultation on fundamental reform of the NHS dental contract that ministers had promised ‘before this summer’ had been downgraded to ‘in due course’ by June.
To all of these factors must be added any ‘Burnham effect’. Students of the Labour Party’s camps describe Burnham as soft left with a populist, regionalist edge. Nailing down what ‘Burnhamism’ might be, let alone its effects on UK dentistry, is made more difficult by his reputation for policy shifts.
While Mr Burnham’s promises may alter, the realities of the UK are somewhat less flexible. He will find himself in the same predicament as his predecessor. Money is short, debt is increasing, and the demand for more spending remains strong.
Indeed, his best chance of a honeymoon may depend on whether he can find billions of pounds for departments that have the sympathy of both the public and the parliamentary Labour Party. Relaxing the Treasury’s fiscal rules would give him some temporary headroom to borrow more, but it could spook markets, potentially prompting comparisons to the turmoil seen under Liz Truss. An alternative would be to raise taxes. Neither option would be good news for GDPs.
Looking at his closest advisers does not help much when it comes to finding the real Andy Burnham.
His presumptive chief of staff, James Purnell, is seen as someone who recognises the need for change on welfare. Economically, he is a Blairite pragmatist, comfortable with market-friendly reforms in public services. In contrast, economic policy adviser Miatta Fahnbulleh is in favour of wealth taxes and increased investment in public services.
And then there is Burnham’s own tenure as Health Secretary.
In many minds, he is associated with the Mid Staffordshire Hospital scandal. This involved appallingly low standards of care and has been linked to hundreds of avoidable deaths. There was widespread patient neglect and the ensuing major public inquiry exposed deep cultural and managerial failures across the NHS.
It must be pointed out that he was not the minister responsible during the period when the Mid Staffs failings occurred. However, he was heavily criticised at the time for not immediately ordering a full statutory public inquiry as more details of the events became public. Local campaigner Julie Bailey, who was central to bringing events at Mid Staffs into the spotlight, has been one of Burnham’s strongest critics.
Of course, Burnham’s time as a health minister was brief. It ended in 2010, when the Labour Party lost the general election under then-PM Gordon Brown.
Brown famously had wanted to be Prime Minister for many years. Eventually, he forced out an incumbent, had his ‘coronation’ and then struggled to define what he stood for. He experienced a turbulent premiership, both nationally and within his party, before electoral defeat in 2010, having never won his own mandate at an election.
Mr Burnham may be hoping that his story, despite some similarities, will have a happier ending.