Labour’s conference in Liverpool last week was a quiet success. Eclipsed as it was by breaking international events, Keir Starmer and his shadow cabinet used their platform to expand on what would distinguish a Labour government from that of Rishi Sunak’s.
Labour came across as a party united behind its leader, which would bring a sober and steady approach to governing in stark contrast to the period of political instability Britain has experienced since the Brexit referendum.
When a protester ran on stage and threw glitter over Starmer at the start of his set-piece speech, he used the moment to underline how far the party has come since the leadership of his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn: a party that seeks the power of government, not the protest of opposition. The most important themes of difference to emerge were a strong reaffirmation of the Labour commitment to achieving net zero carbon emissions, refreshing after Sunak’s steps to water down the government’s green commitments, and a pledge to build 1.5 million more homes over the first five years of a Labour government; housebuilding did not even get a cursory mention in Sunak’s speech the previous week. Sunak deployed the rhetoric of long-termism while cancelling the Birmingham to Manchester section of HS2; Starmer, on the other hand, showed he understands that the biggest challenges facing the country are long-term and structural.
There is, however, a conundrum for Labour contained in its quest for power. Labour is right to be cautious of anything that could jeopardise an election win: one of the most important things that distinguishes Starmer from Corbyn is his clarity that his party’s duty is to voters before members, and that means getting into government rather than languishing in opposition with a manifesto voters don’t believe Labour could deliver.
But that means that Labour is tied to an electorally – and therefore, fiscally – conservative approach that could undermine its ability to respond to the things that desperately need fixing if it wins the next election. After 13 years of Conservative government, the country’s public services, infrastructure and welfare safety net are crumbling. Labour’s shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves has pledged her commitment to “growth, growth and growth” because that is the surefire way to increase tax receipts and hence the resources that can be invested in improving Britain’s schools and hospitals, as well as its transport, childcare and older care systems.
Yet the chicken and egg question raised by this strategy is whether growth can be achieved without spending more upfront. The UK has a long-term productivity issue, made worse by Brexit, that has long depressed growth. Long-term growth cannot be unlocked without reducing the number of people who are out of work due to poor health, or the growing numbers of people in their 50s and 60s who will have to cut back their working hours in order to care for older relatives. It will not materialise without more accessible childcare for parents who currently cannot afford to work, or without addressing the attainment gap that looks set to widen in the wake of the pandemic.
Labour’s promise is that some of this can be achieved without spending much more overall; that can be done through public service reform and redirecting and reprioritising existing pots of funding.
It is a tough mission indeed; and it is why Britain needs economic, not just a political, cause for hope in the next couple of years. Good news for the global economy would mean more resources for a Labour government.
