Seven things we learned from the Labour Party Conference 2024

Keir Starmer’s speech did not convince

Keir Starmer’s detractors argued that his conference speech needed to paint a persuasive picture of the sunlit uplands that will become accessible if the country is prepared to do the hard yards that Labour has repeatedly said it has in store at the forthcoming budget. Did he deliver? Not really. 

The timing of his first conference speech as prime minister, ahead of his government’s first budget, meant his policy announcements were confined to those which do not imply significant spending decisions. Many will have welcomed his repeated condemnation of racism and the violence of the recent riots, but beyond that there were plenty of ‘vibes’ – repeated references to ‘a Britain that belongs to you’, to ‘respect’ and to ‘protecting working people’ – and repeated emphasis on the tough decisions and difficult trade-offs that will need to be made. 

Starmer’s anti-cakeist approach of stepping away from ‘the politics of easy answers’ is needed, but the country is still waiting to find out what the hard answers are going to be. And only in his final sentences did he turn to what those difficult decisions might achieve. “An NHS facing the future, more security and dignity at work, town centres thriving, streets safe, borders controlled at last, clean energy harnessed for industrial renewal, new homes, new towns, new hospitals, roads and schools.” That glimpse of a possible future was only reached after a meandering speech that was not as convincing as it could – or perhaps needed to – have been. ‎

Good intentions will not be enough to deliver Labour’s missions 

In the Labour conference fringe guide there were no fewer than 52 events with the word ‘mission’ in the title. Mission-led government was also threaded through ministerial speeches from the platform. The subject has certainly not been under-debated over the last week. 

But discussions and panel events will not be enough to make mission-led governing a reality. And nor will it simply be a case of Labour ministers sticking to their noble intentions to work across departmental boundaries more effectively than their predecessors. 
Ministers will need the right people and structures to support them to make the missions happen and to bridge divides. They need rapidly to make a reality of the mission boards and show that decisions made in these fora matter and will stick when opposition or bureaucratic lethargy creep in. They must demonstrate that the boards are open to external advice but will not get bogged down with endless consultation. 

Above all the forthcoming budget and then the spending review must allocate defined resources to the missions, with corresponding officials held accountable for spending and delivery. 

Ministers were right to promote the missions at the party conference. But to live up to the hype they need the missions to be an animating force for government, a way of telling the stories they need to communicate and a means of co-ordinating the complex and competing demands of departments. To bear this heavy load the government needs to get the structural foundations right. 

Labour rearticulated its strong political will on housebuilding – but it will need to match this with a strong delivery plan

Labour has made much of its mission to build 1.5 million homes in its first five years in power and key party figures, including Rachel Reeves and the deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, used the conference to reassert this aim. Indeed, at times the conference felt more like a housing summit, with more than 50 events focused on addressing the housing crisis. At our own event we explored how the government can start making progress on its ambitious aims. 

Political will, it seems, will not be in short supply. The two Labour MPs on our panel, Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) and Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North), spoke of their own personal struggles to get on the housing ladder, underlining their strong political commitment to resolving the crisis, both locally and nationally. 

Delivery, however, may be less easily achieved. Peter Foster from the Financial Times highlighted the harsh realities facing the new government which, despite reissuing some strong rhetoric, made no new announcements or strategies to address many of the key delivery challenges, from construction skills shortages to the ability of local authorites to take on greater planning workloads.

So the government will need to set a clear direction for industry to follow, which reconciles its building ambitions with its plan for future environmental and building standards. It must also take concrete steps to equip the construction and planning sectors to meet its stretching targets. Neither is easy, and together amount to a very tall order given that meeting its much-repeated 1.5 million homes target will require a rate of building not seen since the 1960s. 

The conference raised hopes of more investment and changes to the fiscal rules 

Rachel Reeves’ speech raised hopes among conference goers that this government would take a different approach to public spending than its predecessor. She promised that there would be 'no return to austerity', and a 'budget for investment'. Significantly, her speech hinted that she is prepared to change the definition of debt used in her main fiscal rule, saying: “it is time that the Treasury moved on from just counting the costs of investments, to recognising the benefits too”. Doing this could give her more headroom to increase public investment in the budget. 

Despite this change in tone, there was widespread recognition in fringe events (including our own) that fiscal constraints mean publicly financed investment is unlikely to be sufficient to meet the government’s missions on growth and decarbonisation, while also restoring the performance of public services. Several panellists at these events suggested private capital might come to the rescue. The private sector already invests substantial sums in energy and other infrastructure. But the government should ensure any new model of public-private investment partnership learns from the mistakes of the Public Finance Initiative (PFI). Any such partnerships should be set up to improve the delivery of investment rather than massage the numbers.   

Outside of public-private partnerships, our work suggests there are also other ways the government can make sure money is spent better on capital projects. And at our event on how the government can invest well in public services, Treasury chief secretary Darren Jones highlighted his intention to tackle some past problems. In particular, he emphasised that he wanted to break the 'bad habits' developed under the previous government, such as raiding investment budgets to top up day-to-day spending in the NHS and other services.  

Reeves’s party conference speech rightly did not set out major new policy announcements – conference is not the right time for that. The budget at the end of October and the multi-year spending review next spring will tell us much more about how the government will prioritise its investments to boost growth, decarbonise energy generation and improve public services.  

Warm words on ethics – but still no firm answers 

Stories of senior ministers, particularly the prime minister, accepting large gifts and hospitality donations had buffeted the government in the build up to the conference. Given how hard Labour had criticised the Conservative government on its ethical failings, many at conference seemed both surprised and disappointed that the new government had so quickly become embroiled in this kind of row. 

At our panel event on Monday evening, Leader of the Commons Lucy Powell strongly rejected the idea that anything in recent weeks was on a par with the scandals of the last government. She made the point that all the donations received were within the rules, and stressed that meeting businesses and spending time with different groups helped MPs and ministers better represent their constituents and govern the country. She also noted that the Modernisation Committee, which she has set up in parliament, will be tasked with updating how the Commons works – a welcome step forward.  

But Powell’s spirited defence of ministers and their plans did not provide answers to all the questions about the government’s approach to ethics. The only really firm commitment on ethics in the Labour manifesto was to establish the Ethics and Integrity Commission, which Angela Rayner proposed in opposition. But the government has not yet said anything about how this will work. It is also yet to produce an updated ministerial code, or implement a commitment to give the independent adviser on ministers’ interests the ability to start his own investigations into potential breaches of that code.  

Labour may believe they are the good guys on this issue, but that does not mean they should delay reforms to the system of ethics in government. Ethical government requires leadership and robust structures – Labour have an opportunity to strengthen both. 

Labour ministers have correctly identified the problems with public services

Labour ministers at conference were refreshingly clear about the problems ailing public services. While it is to be expected that they would be critical of their predecessors’ record, it bodes well that they have correctly identified the key causes of the malaise. 

Underinvestment in capital was a common theme. Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the Treasury, gave the clearest articulation of the problems, acknowledging that short-term, insufficient capital budgets are regularly underspent and raided to cover shortfalls in day-to-day spending. But, given the tendency of some to overhype the immediate potential of AI, it was most gratifying to hear the health secretary, Wes Streeting, talk about the importance of getting the basics right, so that frontline staff aren’t waiting '12 minutes to log in' every morning.  

Lots of ministers, including Cabinet Office minister Georgia Gould and health minister Andrew Gwynne, talked about the importance of providing frontline services with greater autonomy. Labour has already committed to longer-term budgets for local authorities, but Streeting also said he would like to be able to give NHS trusts more financial certainty. Perhaps most interestingly, he said he was thinking carefully about how changes to financial flows and incentives could help make the NHS services more local, personal and preventative.

Indeed, prevention was another common theme. In particular, there appeared to be enthusiasm for using regulation to reduce demand for public services. Streeting said the fear of nanny statism had been allowed to persist for too long, while Gwynne, the prevention minister, was more forceful, discussing the need to move forward with stronger regulation of food that is high in fat, sugar or salt, with or without the support of the industry.  

Fixing capital spending, freeing up frontline services to innovate, and shifting to prevention are all critical for improving public service productivity. Ahead of the budget on 30 October and subsequent spending review, the key question is whether the government can resist the pressures that have seen its predecessors do the opposite. 

The government looks to be serious in its commitment to devolution

There was a lively debate at conference about the future of devolution, with Jim McMahon MP – lead minister for this agenda – setting out his plans at a packed IfG event on Monday morning.  

He made clear that all parts of England should eventually be covered by mayoral devolution, with mayors then joining the leaders of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the planned Council of Nations and Regions. As a new IfG report sets out, there is a credible path to ‘Completing the Map’ of English devolution by 2029, but tricky decisions about geography, powers and funding lie ahead. 

McMahon’s priority will be to 'complete the north', implying new mayoralties in Cheshire, Cumbria and Lancashire – as well as East Yorkshire, confirmed prior to conference. Meanwhile, the government is consulting on a planned English Devolution Bill, but this is now not expected until spring 2025, later than initially scheduled. 

Labour’s metro mayors were high-profile figures on the conference fringe in their own right. More than one spoke warmly of the government’s openness to co-producing policy with them, as well as setting out key asks. Mayoral priorities include devolution of post-16 skills, employment support, strategic planning and fiscal powers, plus expansion of the 'integrated settlement' funding model offered to Greater Manchester and West Midlands. These are good ideas, in line with recent IfG recommendations.  

Labour appears to be serious in its view that devolution is core to the government’s growth strategy. This is welcome – but the details of the government’s plans remain to be worked through.