Archive for: Political Monitoring

Written by Michael Kane and Laura Fitzgerald. 

Nearly four months on from the 2024 General Election and the UK’s first female Chancellor Rachel Reeves finally delivered the Government’s Budget. The hefty 170-page document, and Reeves’ accompanying statement to the Commons, goes some way to provide further clarity on the Government’s priorities. In this sense, it feels like a particularly significant Budget given the accusations that Labour attempted a ‘Ming vase strategy‘ of avoiding difficult decisions in the election, and the relative ambiguity about priorities after their first 100 days.

Whether the Budget provides complete clarity on the above is yet to be seen. Nonetheless, it certainly provides some takeaways to be explored.

The return of tax and spend?

Just as the Budget was enormous in terms of its significance, the announcements on taxation, borrowing, and spending were equally as huge. In contrast with Reeves’ relatively steady approach before the election, with only minor tweaks to taxes and spending mentioned in Labour’s manifesto, yesterday saw the Chancellor in a markedly different light.

From the announcement of record tax rises by £40bn, to one of the largest increases in spending since the 2000 spending review at almost £70bn, the Autumn 2024 Budget was nothing short of historic. The majority of the £40bn worth of tax rises will come from a £25bn increase in employers’ National Insurance contributions – a tax take which reportedly places the UK at almost level with the Netherlands, and seen by some as Labour’s move towards a more ‘European-style economy.’ Increases in borrowing were also announced yesterday, facilitated by Reeves’ choice to change the UK’s fiscal rules which loosened the constraints around borrowing to invest.

These decisions, while drastic, are hoped to precipitate economic growth and prosperity in the long-term – ‘no pain, no gain’. However, the fiscal forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility does seem to augur such an explosion of growth. It finds that, while GDP will increase to 1.1 percent this year and to 2.0 percent next year, the rate will then fall to 1.8 percent in 2026 and to 1.5 percent thereafter. Will Reeves’ gamble pay off? Or will the Budget fall short of the investment needed to truly ‘fix the foundations’?

The Government’s farming predicament

The lead-up to the Budget saw Reeves repeatedly warn of the ‘tough decisions’ that need to be made to fill the blackhole in public finances, and this was certainly true for the UK’s farming community. Farmers were among those dealt the most devastating blow yesterday, leaving many to fear for their livelihoods and legacy of their life’s work alike.

The reform in question includes a limit on inheritance tax relief for farms to £1m, a move which farmers claim will make inheriting family farms unviable, and a policy which the National Farmers’ Union has called ‘disastrous‘. Concerns have also been raised regarding the impact of the tax relief cap on food security and the ability of future generations to grow British produce. This would have implications for both businesses and consumers, making the UK more heavily reliant on imports, affecting sustainable food production and undermining commitments to protect the environment.

Broadcasters Jeremy Clarkson and Rachel Johnson are among the critics of the reform, taking to X to express their anger towards the announcement. Clarkson, presenter of the programme ‘Clarkson’s Farm’, urged farmers not to despair and to ‘look after [themselves] for five short years’ by which time ‘this shower will be gone’, while Johnson blasted the Government’s decision in order to raise ‘a measly £500m’.

With details on the Government’s new deal for farmers yet to be published, the Government’s promises to enhance rural economic growth and food security could seem something of a distant reality. The Government did allocate £500mn in Project Gigabit and the Shared Rural Network to enhance broadband provision in underserved rural areas, but whether rural communities feel sufficiently supported is another matter.

Local Government finance

Coming into the Budget, the challenges facing Local Government were stark: among the council Chief Executives who responded to a pre-budget survey from the Local Government Association, over half said they were likely to declare financial bankruptcy in the next five years. Therefore, addressing the challenges facing Local Government is vital on a practical level, given the role Local Government plays as first point of contact for many citizens in the delivery of vital services such as social care, SEND provision, and housing. Additionally, the sentiment in Labour’s pre-election manifesto illustrates the Government’s intention to further devolution across England – self-evidently, this is only feasible with sustainable funding.

The Budget attempted to grapple with the significance of the situation by promising an additional £1.3bn of new grant funding for local authority services. Most notably, this included £600m for social care and an additional £233m spending in 2025-26 on homelessness prevention. This may go some distance to provide an immediate sticking plaster over funding gaps, however questions remain about the long-term sustainability of this approach. Firstly, this is not enough to address the £2.3bn funding shortfall, as noted by the think tank Reform. Secondly, a more fundamental rethink about the funding and organisation of Local Government may prove to be a more successful strategy – perhaps revaluing council tax could be a starting point. However, the Budget revealed that the proposed devolution legislation will involve ‘working with councils to move to simpler structures that make sense for their local areas’ – this is something to keep an eye on given the demand to reorganise local government in England.

Looking beyond the headlines

There were aspects of the Budget that did not grasp the prevailing headlines and soundbites that the Government briefed – this includes proposals that were hidden and the shortcomings of some of the announcements. First, the Government revealed that they will consult next year on proposals to bring remote gambling (gambling offered over the internet, telephone, TV and radio) into a single tax. Preceding this, the Social Market Foundation and the Institute for Public Policy Research had both suggested increasing tax on remote gambling. Curiously, the Government’s announcement did not make it into Reeves’ speech or the main text in the document – instead it was to be found in the policy announcements section towards the end of the document. Significantly, this speaks to Labour’s prior ambiguity on gambling regulation with their manifesto simply suggesting that they would ‘reform gambling protections’ and that they are ‘committed to reducing gambling-related harm’. Given the centrality of prevention to the Government’s agenda for health policy, this is something to keep an eye on, even if the Government does not shout about it.

Moreover, when interrogating the details of the Budget, we can see some apparent shortcomings. For example, the Government committed to continuing the freeze on fuel duty in a bid to appease concerns from drivers. However, the visuals of freezing fuel duty while increasing the cap on bus fares, and the news that rail fares will increase by 4.6% next year may seem counter-intuitive – especially considering the impending net-zero transition.

Interestingly, the New Economics Foundation also detailed that updating the fuel duty could fund the £2 bus fare cap ten times over. Finally, when doing the media rounds this morning, Reeves noted that increasing taxes on businesses may have detrimental effects on pay increases for workers. Meanwhile, the Institute for Fiscal Studies explained that this Budget will only increase real household disposable income by 0.4%, if projected to the whole parliament. This feeds into arguments that a windfall tax on banks or a wealth tax may prove a better means to redistribute wealth.

Looking forward

Reeves’ Budget has proved relatively decisive on some of the key questions facing the Government. To some degree, this was inevitable with the UK economy facing a practical reckoning given the myriad of crosscutting challenges. Whether this be the highest tax burden since the Second World War, the highest level of national debt since the 1960s, the annual GDP growth slowing to 1.5% since the 2008 financial crash, or the decline in living standards over the last Parliament.

Knowing all this, Labour have still made the promise to make the UK the fastest growing economy in the G7. Therefore, something had to give to level with this promise and the UK’s wider economic predicament. Specifically, Reeves chose to focus on taxing business and tweaking the fiscal rules to allow for greater borrowing in an attempt to drive growth. With Reeves set to appear in front of the Treasury Select Committee next week, that session will provide a further read into how the Government grapples with the economic predicament.

For regular updates on what is happening in UK politics and public affairs, sign up to our fortnightly Point of Order newsletter, going out every other Thursday.

The Conservative leadership candidates have all given their pitch to the party hoping to succeed Rishi Sunak. The last time Conservative members chose their leader, they went for Liz Truss. This time the choice will not be as consequential for the country, as they will be taking the position of Leader of the Opposition, rather than Prime Minister.

While not being as significant to the country, it is of vital importance to the party as they are at somewhat of a crossroads in terms of their long and storied history. They are coming off a historic defeat at the General Election and now have only 121 MPs. Labour is attempting to blame the previous Government for everything they can. The Liberal Democrats and Reform both enjoyed significant electoral success against the party at the election as well. Whoever is chosen has a big task on their hands.

Tugendhat
Emerging from a sea of foam fingers and Tom Tugendtote bags, Shadow Security Minister Tom Tugendhat was the first of the candidates to take to the main hall stage at this year’s Conservative Party Conference and give his leadership pitch. In a nod to his background as a former soldier, Tugendhat’s speech was largely values-driven, emphasising the importance of integrity towards – and service to – both the party and country alike. While his decorated military experience precedes him, Tugendhat certainly has the least government experience of the four leadership hopefuls. With less than two years serving as Security Minister under former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Tugendhat played to his time in the military, saying that this showed him what true leadership is, and he promised to ‘lead with conviction and [to] act decisively’. He also justified his comparatively shorter time in management around the cabinet table claiming that he is ‘not here to manage, but to lead.’

Echoing the sentiment of the conference’s slogan ‘Review and Rebuild’, Tugendhat’s speech stressed the need to rebuild the party and restore the trust of the British people. He also vowed to rebuild CCHQ, and turn the Conservatives back into a ‘campaign-winning machine.’ Global security is a priority for Tugendhat. He values Britain’s position on the global stage and said the Conservatives have long been a party to fight for freedom, ‘united’ against threats the UK has faced. Migration, healthcare, the economy, and energy were also key areas of focus in his speech. He pledged to introduce an effective deterrent for migration, including a legal cap at 100,000, while on health and energy he vowed to strip excessive regulations in the health system and never to allow the UK to be dependent on ‘tyrants’ for energy.

This week also saw the Shadow Security Minister hit out at rival Robert Jenrick who used footage of one of Tugendhat’s former comrades in a campaign video. Jenrick published the video to make the case that the UK needs to withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), claiming it forces the SAS into ‘killing rather than capturing terrorists’. The video contained footage of British soldiers in combat, one of whom Tugendhat knew from his time in Afghanistan, and who has since passed away. Tugendhat took to BBC Newsnight to express his anger at Jenrick’s comments, stating that it shows a ‘fundamental lack of awareness of military operations’ and urging Jenrick to ‘pull [the video] down’. He also said that it was ‘particularly upsetting’ that his friend had been used in vain, unable to have the opportunity to defend himself. Tugendhat’s own stance on ECHR is somewhat reminiscent of David Cameron pre-Brexit referendum in that he suggested ‘[opting] out of the bits you can, reform the bits that aren’t working, and if that doesn’t work, be prepared to leave’.

While Tugendhat is popular among the public, with a recent poll placing him in the lead among The Independent readership, his prospects at Wednesday’s third ballot may not yield such positive results. According to a recent YouGov poll, Tugendhat is trailing behind, with only 16% of Conservative party members believing he is fit for the top job.

Cleverly
James Cleverly is widely viewed as being the candidate who benefitted the most from his speech at conference. He went into the conference as a bit of an outsider without much momentum and his leadership rivals were capturing far more of the media attention. He called on the party to be ‘normal’ and attempted to provide party members with a sense of motivation going forward. He even began his speech asking what the point of the party is and went on to speak on how the party has no right to power. He focused heavily on his upbringing and life, going through his upbringing in Lewisham, his time in the Reserves, his career in business, and his wife’s battle with cancer. Cleverly succeeded where some have criticised Tugendhat, in explaining who he is and what his background is and not taking for granted people know who he is.

The sense of trying to motivate a defeated party can be seen through Cleverly listing the Conservatives’ achievements over the years and squarely saying that if he is leader there will be no deals with Reform.

Another key part of Cleverly’s speech was his experience and what he had done, which was well received. However on 3 October the Foreign Office released a joint statement on the Chagos Archipelago, whereby sovereignty was given to Mauritius over the islands. Cleverly criticised this announcement which could be seen to have been a bit of a misstep as he was the Foreign Secretary when the negotiations began. This was roundly pointed out across social media and has been picked up by his leadership rivals. This has hurt Cleverly’s credibility just as his stock was beginning to rise, as he is seemingly criticising a policy that he initiated.

Jenrick
Bobby J had perhaps the most turbulent week of all the leadership contenders. He came into the conference as the frontrunner but a campaign video on the ECHR has caused him big problems. In a video where Jenrick was making the case for the UK to leave the ECHR, he made the claim that British special forces are killing rather than capturing terrorists due to the convention. When he was challenged on the remarks Jenrick stood by his claim, saying he did not want the convention to get in the way of national security. Jenrick cited an article by former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace in which he wrote “because of international treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights defence secretaries are being forced to choose between killing individuals, generally by drone, or leaving them to continue plotting”. This led to the first real blue on blue attacks of the leadership campaign, with both James Cleverly and Tom Tugendhat expressing concern with Jenrick’s claim.

Jenrick played to the audience both in terms of location and their politics. He proudly declared his Midlands roots and revealed that one of his daughters’ middle names is Thatcher, as she was born in the year Margaret Thatcher died and he respects ‘strong women’. Jenrick made a slight mistake when he claimed that in 1974 the Conservative Party decided to be led by Margaret Thatcher, as Thatcher actually became leader of the Conservative Party in 1975.

Jenrick has in the last few weeks closed the gap between himself and the members’ favourite Kemi Badenoch. He has the most support among MPs, and if the members move with him, it would be fair to consider him in pole position.

Badenoch
The gifts available at Kemi Badenoch’s party conference tent were slightly different from her opponents. No t-shirts or hats, but Kemi apples, anyone? Perhaps a symbol of a healthy Britain, perhaps a symbol that a fresh start is coming, either way Badenoch has certainly been the apple of the Conservative party members’ eye for most of the leadership contest. A recent YouGov poll has revealed that the Shadow Housing Secretary is the hot favourite among members and this has largely been the case since the race began. That being said, her popularity has waned in recent days following her controversial remarks regarding maternity pay. Speaking with Times Radio, former Business Secretary Badenoch claimed that statutory maternity pay places an ‘excessive’ burden on business and has ‘gone too far.’ The comment has since come under fire, leading Badenoch to later defend herself on X, insisting that ‘of course [she believes] in maternity pay!’. A poll conducted amid the backlash over the remarks found that only 7% of the British public think maternity pay is too much, so it begs the question, is it Badenoch who has gone ‘too far?’ Badenoch has pitched herself as somewhat of a fighter, saying ‘if you swing at me, I will swing back’, something that some members may admire, which others may find concerning. Her dismissal of identity politics will likely have gone down well with members however. When asked about how she would feel to be the first black leader, she responded, ‘I am somebody who wants the colour of skin to be no more significant than the colour of our hair or the colour of our eyes’.

Badenoch’s speech at conference reflected her worldview and outlined her values. She spoke of the importance of trust, freedom of speech, and the bravery to do the right thing. Contrary to Labour’s steadfast drive towards clean energy, Badenoch is herself a net zero sceptic. She said the net zero strategy is damaging to the economy and criticised the commitment towards the transition to net zero. The latter half of her speech focused on the key tenets of her leadership. She pledged to ‘rewrite the rules of game’, developing a comprehensive plan to reform the British state and economy. She said this will include a review of the UK’s international agreements, the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, judicial review, the Treasury, the Bank of England, the Civil Service and the NHS. She closed her speech with the unveiling of her ‘Renewal 2030’ plan. For Badenoch, 2030, potentially the Conservatives’ first year back in office, would be an opportunity to build growth in the UK, centred around personal responsibility, family, sovereignty and capitalism.

For what could have been a ‘doom and gloom’ party conference following a bruising election defeat, there was certainly an air of optimism among the leadership candidates. The four contenders all believe that they have what it takes to rebuild the country and lead the Conservative party to victory at the next election. What differs however is their approach to doing so. A Badenoch or Jenrick victory may see Labour confronted with challenges on their net zero policy, whilst a Tugendhat or Cleverly victory may see greater emphasis on global security and foreign policy.

With Tugendhat likely to be the next candidate eliminated from the race, it remains to be seen where his share of the votes will go. Will they be distributed to Cleverly, after his impressive performance at conference, and similar left-leaning stance? Or will Badenoch and Jenrick hold strong at the top? It’s up to the members to decide.

For regular updates on what is happening in UK politics and public affairs, sign up to our weekly Point of Order newsletter, going out every Friday morning.

Was getting unemployed people into employment a key priority for the Conservative Government? Attempts included the New Back to Work Plan, former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s promise to tackle what he called ‘sick-note culture’, and choices for the Spring Budget in 2023, with the announcement of a £7 billion Employment package. However, despite policy initiatives, unemployment levels in the UK continue to be high.

Why is the employment ‘epidemic’ a growing problem, despite such initiatives?

According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), 4.4% of people were unemployed between February and April 2024, equivalent to 1.44m people. Issues many unemployed are up against – long-term sickness, mental health problems, and early retirement, or caring responsibilities, inabilitities to find and retain jobs due to labour market demands, or gaps in skills and experiences required.

The problem of unemployment is growing. In most of the public sectors, such as health, social care, education, and the police force, there is a shortage of staff. Meanwhile, the Confederation of British Industry found that 38% of businesses reported that labour shortages were holding back their ability to invest and grow.

A look back at Conservative Government actions on unemployment

The New Back to Work Plan included a promise to implement tougher benefit sanctions for those not actively looking for work, trial possible reforms for the fit note process to make it easier and quicker for people to get specialised work and health support, and the launching of the WorkWell service.

Additionally, in April 2024, former Prime Minister Sunak gave a speech at the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) on eliminating ‘sick note culture’, claiming it as a ‘lifestyle choice’ for those capable of working. Sunak’s intention to strip away the power GPs had to give sick notes sparked outrage within the charity and welfare sector, with the British Psychological Society stating that ‘the Prime Minister is taking the approach of attempting to minimise the mental health challenges […] The government should be prepared to invest the proper funds into mental health services.’

Labour’s plans to tackle the unemployment issue

With a new Labour Government established, with a different vision and different priorities, what is being said in regard to the unemployment epidemic? During the Labour campaigning period, the party promised a major programme of reform to support more people into work and bring the benefits bill down. In their manifesto, Labour has made ambitious promises, including reforming employment support with a system underpinned by rights and responsibilities. Furthermore, they have also stressed the importance of bringing Jobcentre Plus and the National Careers Service together to provide a national jobs and careers service.

In addition, Labour has made promises to help those with illnesses and disability into work, as they are more likely to face discrimination and structural barriers. Labour has promised to devolve funding so local areas can shape a joined-up work, health, and skills offer for local people. Moreover, parallel to the Conservative Government, Labour also proposed a Back to Work Plan within their first week of being in office. They plan to create new national jobs and career services; develop new work, health, and skills plans for the economically inactive, led by Mayors and local areas; and to introduce a Youth Guarantee to create more opportunities for training, apprenticeships, or help to find work for all young people aged 18-21 years old.

This growing epidemic needs to be at the heart of the welfare agenda for the new Government, given the pressures it is putting on public sector workers. Whether the initiatives announced so far can bring down the number of unemployed people, we are yet to discover.

For regular updates on what is happening in UK politics and public affairs, sign up to our weekly Point of Order newsletter, going out every Friday morning.

In attempts to highlight its importance, Labour dedicated two pages of its manifesto to equalities in a section entitled ‘Respect and opportunity for all’. Here, they promised to ‘ensure [that] no matter whatever your background, you can thrive’. The King’s Speech proceeded to mention two bills relating to equalities; the Draft Equality (Race and Disability) Bill and the Draft Conversion Practices Bill.

The Draft Equality Bill aims to enshrine in law the full right to equal pay for disabled people and ethnic minorities. It will also introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay reporting for employers with over 250 employees. With the Draft Conversion Practices Bill, Labour have committed to extending the scope of the conversion therapy ban introduced by the last Government to make it trans-inclusive. The bill will work to introduce new criminal offences to target acts of conversion which are not covered by existing legislation.

The details of this have been quite vague so far – presumably because this issue remains controversial, and the party divided on transgender rights. Labour have said the ban would not extend to ‘legitimate psychological support, treatment, or non-directive counselling’, but it remains to be seen exactly how the Government plans on defining conversion therapy in the draft legislation.

Both of these bills build on promises that were laid out in the Labour manifesto, but there are areas in which the new Government has failed to deliver yet. One criticism being faced by the party is that despite having had Vicky Foxcroft as the Shadow Minister for Disabled People, Labour did not reserve this role for their new Government, instead splitting the remit into various departments. As such, Sir Stephen Timms was made Minister of State for Social Security and Disability in DWP and Stephen Kinnock is now Minister of State for Care (with responsibilities for overseeing disabilities and SEND) in DHSC. This also comes after Foxcroft publicly criticised the former government for not appointing a Minister to this role.

Fazilet Hadi, Head of Policy at Disability Rights UK, said that this approach ‘is problematic on so many levels’. Further to this, Hadi said that simply adding equality briefs to ministers who already have major operational duties signals that tackling inequality for those with protected characteristics is not central to Labour’s vision of a changed society.

Similarly, Labour has also failed, so far, to deliver on its promise to create a Department solely dedicated to Women and Equalities. At the 2023 Labour Conference, former Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities Anneliese Dodds said: ‘If Labour wins the next election, I will become the UK’s first ever Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, with a seat at the top table, dedicated to advocating for women in all their diversity in every Cabinet conversation.’

Having held this position for nearly three years, many were baffled by the secrecy and the delay of the announcement – only to find out this role was abolished and the remit was split between Dodds and Bridget Phillipson – who both, again, have other ministerial responsibilities. According to i News, a Downing Street spokesperson denied that the role had been downgraded, and additionally the Fawcett Society, a high-profile charity for women, praised Starmer for appointing not just one, but two Ministers to the role.

With summer recess to soon draw to a close, the resumption of Parliament in the autumn will come as the true test for Starmer and his cabinet. It is to be seen how the opposition party may confront the redrafted Equality Bill, or may criticise the Government’s overall approach to tackling the issue of equalities.

For regular updates on what is happening in UK politics and public affairs, sign up to our weekly Point of Order newsletter, going out every Friday morning.

The Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill was the first introduced by the new Labour Government in Parliament. This Bill is meant to deliver on Labour’s manifesto commitment to reform the railways and bring them into public ownership when existing contracts with private sector operators end, or when operators fail to deliver. Just before summer recess, MPs voted 351 to 84 to give the Bill a second reading. The Bill will have its report stage and third reading on 3 September before moving on to the House of Lords.

Bringing the railways back into public ownership is just one of the Government’s plans. In fact, Rail Partners chief executive Andy Bagnall, said ‘Train companies agree that change is needed but it is disappointing to see Government legislating to ban the use of contracted train companies, without first setting out the detail of how its wider rail reform bill will deliver improvements for passengers and freight customers’.

In their manifesto, Labour pledged to establish Great British Railways (GBR), which would create a unified and simplified governance structure. This plan was confirmed during the King’s Speech, as the Government announced its intention to introduce a Railways Bill. However, the legislation to create GBR is likely to take time, so to offset this Labour will be setting up a ‘shadow GBR’ over the coming months, which will unite key industry bodies.

In its plan for rail, Labour also pledged it would set up a new passenger watchdog, the Passenger Standards Authority, which would have the power to require service improvement plans, inspect the performance of GBR, and assess its performance. The Railways Bill will also establish GBR’s role in ticketing reform and set out a statutory duty on GBR to promote rail freight.

The King’s Speech also confirmed the Government’s position on HS2, with no plans to revive Phase 2. The Government will be continuing to repurpose the High Speed Rail (Crewe to Manchester) Bill for ‘connecting regional centres in the north’.

However, there is still the unanswered question of Euston. Despite speculation that the future of the station hangs in the balance, Chancellor Rachel Reeves did not mention it in her list of spending cuts on Monday this week. However, in her speech, she did announce that the Restoring Your Railway fund has been canceled, which the Campaign for Better Transport is urging the Government to reconsider.

Following the Chancellor’s speech, the Secretary of State for Transport Louise Haigh confirmed she will commission an internal review of the department’s capital spend portfolio. The review will also make recommendations about current and future schemes. This review is expected to also support the development of the long-term strategy for transport, as Labour pledged to develop in their manifesto.

For regular updates on what is happening in UK politics and public affairs, sign up to our weekly Point of Order newsletter, going out every Friday morning.

Written by Michael Kane and Helen Stott. 

With the King’s Speech, Labour may have hoped to represent an emancipatory moment after almost a generation in what seemed to be perennial opposition. However, it was instead borne out of the political, economic, and democratic challenges that riddle the UK right now.

It’s 15 years since Labour’s last State Opening of Parliament, where Gordon Brown’s Government’s final legislative programme was influenced by external factors. Specifically, one key proposal focused on strengthening the governance of financial services amid the backdrop of increasing negative sentiment towards bankers and a global financial crisis. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s first legislative programme may also be shaped, and perhaps constrained, by significant external factors.

Labour are facing what Chancellor Rachel Reeves has called the worst fiscal inheritance since 1945, with a ballooning tax burden and national debt, mixed in with struggling public services, alongside a wider feeling of political apathy. For instance, the 2024 British Social Attitudes revealed that 79% of participants were dissatisfied with the way the UK is governed. Meanwhile, University College London’s ‘Policy Lab’ report found 74% of the public now believe that Britain is rigged to serve the rich and influential.

This feeling arguably manifested in the 2024 General Election, with only 52% of adults in the UK voting, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research. Interestingly, this is the lowest figure since universal suffrage for those over 21 years old was granted in 1928. This is complemented by a sentiment of democratic deficit around Labour, with their 170 seat majority being propelled by a meagre 34% of the vote. To add to this, the election highlighted the relative fragility of Labour’s electoral coalition, with the Greens doing well in more cosmopolitan urban areas, and Reform UK finishing second in a significant number of Labour’s traditional ‘red wall’ heartlands.

In this sense, Starmer’s legislative programme comes at a time of immense challenges for the country where few actually believe political institutions can address them.

Economic growth and interventionism

Prior to the election, many would have been forgiven for tuning out of Labour’s economic message for how repetitive it was – the central tenet being that the UK must return to economic growth. It formed the first mission of Labour’s five: to make the UK the fastest growing economy in the G7. Only four days into Government, and Reeves reminded us that striving for economic growth would dictate HM’s Treasury activity. This focus on economic growth stems from two places – Labour’s repudiation of the UK’s economic stagnation under the previous government, and the practical necessity of funding their plans for public services, housing, and the impending net zero and digital transition. Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones admitted to Channel 4 that the only way to ‘find more money to spend on public services is by growing the economy’.

The pre-eminence of growth is also evident in King Charles’ remarks, which were composed by the Government. In an age of 24-hour news, most people’s exposure to the King’s Speech comes through brief coverage of the King’s remarks, rather than the Bills themselves. Therefore, it’s significant that King Charles opened his speech by detailing the Government’s mission to secure economic growth before detailing the means that Labour will employ to achieve this: 1) planning reform; 2) GB Energy; and 3) Skills England.

All three of these tenets arguably represent a shift to a more interventionist approach from Labour. Their proposals on planning reform would represent a sudden departure from the Conservatives’ inaction through the implementation of new compulsory purchase compensation rules and mandatory housing targets. Whether this proves to be morally contradictory with Labour’s desire to devolve decision making to local communities (the English Devolution Bill) remains to be seen.

Likewise, the legislation to create GB Energy clarified that it will not just serve as an investment vehicle but will ‘own, manage, and operate clean power projects’ – a radical shift, perhaps, from the implication by Cabinet Minister Pat McFadden that it may only serve as a funnel for private investment. Skills England is the proposal that ties these measures together. The new national skills body would develop a ‘national and local picture’ of skills shortages through working with the ‘Migration Advisory Committee, unions and the Industrial Strategy Council’. Such a proposal is a direct attempt to remedy skills gaps and labour shortages – as illustrated by the New Economics Foundation. These gaps, along with low productivity, impeded the prior Government’s pursuit of growth and limited its ability to address the housing crisis or the impending net zero transition.

These three proposals under the overarching vision of economic growth may indeed illustrate a more interventionist approach than initially suspected – however, only once the Government’s tax and spending plans are elucidated in the forthcoming Budget can this be confirmed.

Interventionism continued through the New Deal for Working People

Years winning the 2024 General Election, Labour had been clear that their plans for economic growth would go hand-in-hand with those to strengthen workers’ rights. The Government used the King’s Speech to introduce the Employment Rights Bill, which the party says will deliver on the policies set out in its New Deal for Working People. This includes requiring that employers accommodate flexible working ‘as far as reasonable’; banning zero hour contracts; ending ‘fire and rehire’ practices; removing ‘unnecessary restrictions’ on trade unions; and strengthening other employment rights, such as parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal. Alongside the Bill, Labour said that they will introduce a ‘genuine living wage’ and get rid of age bands for pay.

The last Government had somewhat adversarial relationships with the trade unions, and as Labour come into power we will see this relationship shift drastically. However, that doesn’t mean it will all be plain sailing. It is true that Labour has a structural link with the trade union movement going back to the party’s creation, and unions like Unite remain some of Labour’s biggest donors. However, Starmer and Reeves have repeatedly stressed that they want Labour to be the ‘natural party of business’, and under Starmer’s leadership the proportion of party funding received from companies and individuals has dwarfed the contribution of unions. Sharon Graham, who won the election to become General Secretary of Unite in 2021, has taken quite a pragmatic stance towards Starmer’s Labour party – she has not threatened dis-affiliation, but has been very clear that her unions’ continued financial support comes with strings attached. Prior to the General Election, she refused to give the union’s endorsement to Labour’s manifesto, and there has been protracted conflict between the Labour leadership and the unions over what some see as a watering down of the original commitments on workers’ rights.

The contents of the Bill announced during the King’s Speech last week will likely please the unions, but the legislation will have to go through debate in Parliament, and business will be lobbying to make sure the new regulations don’t impact their bottom line too much. Business leaders have already voiced their concern about some of the proposals. Earlier this year the President of the Confederation for British Industry said the UK needed to avoid a ‘European model’ of excessive regulation, warning of the ‘unintended consequences’ of Labour’s plans. The difficulties Labour will have in implementing this legislation are symptomatic of the fragile coalition they need to hold together should they survive another term in government.

What’s missing and what’s next?

While the King’s Speech proved to be a comprehensive legislative programme with over 35 Bills, it is equally important to pay attention to what was omitted. King Charles’ speech made reference to the Government’s intention to regulate AI and reform the apprenticeship levy, but there weren’t any Bills introduced on these topics. This indicates that they may be on the Government’s future legislative agenda, but are not an immediate priority.

Ending the VAT tax break for private schools was also mentioned, and this will likely be in the forthcoming budget. Meanwhile, legal migration and the two child benefit limit were not explicitly mentioned. This is interesting, considering how pervasive these issues have been and how they encapsulate some of the electoral challenges Labour face; from the left with the Greens and new intake of Independents, and from the right with Reform UK.

However, since the King’s Speech, there has been some mention of these issues, with Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson admitting on the morning of the 22 July that the Government would consider ending the two child benefit cap – a stance that Starmer later endorsed. On the same day, Starmer’s speech on plans to establish Skills England posited the reforms through the lens of migration, as he condemned the UK’s overreliance on foreign labour.

While the King’s Speech elucidates how Labour will begin to address the political, economic, and democratic challenges that riddle the UK right now, it is not a comprehensive guide to Labour’s plans. Further clarity will likely come in Labour’s forthcoming Budget and their plans to address the important issues yet to be tackled.

For regular updates on what is happening in UK politics and public affairs, sign up to our weekly Point of Order newsletter, going out every Friday morning.