Five things I took away from Labour Party Conference

Lewis Iwu, Founding Partner of Purpose Union, reflects on what changed at Labour Party Conference after Andy Burnham’s speech, and what that might mean for the government’s direction from here.

First, it's worth noting just how many people were at their first Labour Party Conference. Over the years, it has become a much bigger affair. It was clear that lots of charities and businesses were taking public affairs more seriously and investing in sending people to network, meet ministers and get a sense of the conversation.

That tracks with conversations we've been having with friends in various organisations, who are reinvesting resources in their engagement with politics, given the volatility and the multi-party political environment we're now in.

Some issues were surprisingly absent

Second, it was interesting that some topics seemed to be deprioritised this year. As usual, there was a strong fringe focused on education, housing and workers' rights. Yet there didn't seem to be as much focus on migration and citizenship, given the headlines and the wider discourse across society.

And although AI featured more than it has at previous conferences, given the very public concerns about AI safety, it's unclear that the Labour movement has any concrete thinking about protecting the public, or about reimagining what a state powered by AI might look like.

The mood changed after Andy Burnham’s speech

Third, mood. It feels like a cliché now to say the mood was more positive at the Conference this year than in previous years, but I think that's somewhat simplistic.

Before Burnham's speech, there was cautious optimism. People still had some concerns about replacing the previous leader, and some worry that there wasn't a clearer direction of travel from Burnham, although everyone acknowledged he had made a good start.

In particular, there were lingering doubts about strategy across several areas, including electoral reform and how to fund many of the commitments the new Prime Minister had made.

The contrast after the speech was dramatic.

Within the Labour movement, there was a sense of validation that Burnham was the right Prime Minister, and may even be a transformational one. There were some concerns that he may be fighting too many battles at once, across the relationship with the EU, electoral reform, the pensions triple lock and social care, and that he might use up all his political capital on those issues and have no bandwidth for much else.

There was, however, an appreciation that the dividing lines were clearer, that MPs had more meat to take to the doorstep and, crucially, that Labour had a leader prepared to make the argument to the public.

It's also interesting to see the reaction from other parties. They have, of course, gone for the usual attack lines. For example, on Labour's plan to reform the triple lock. But there's a grudging realisation that Burnham is a different political animal and will be harder to beat.

An early indicator is that he already seems to be moving public opinion on the contentious policy areas where he wants to make a difference. There is now a considerable effort on the right to unite in order to stave off the threat of Burnham dominating the next few years.

When will the general election be?

Next, when will the election be? Speculation seemed to have dampened after the Prime Minister ruled out an election until 2029.

However, after the speech, many people noted that a lot of the commitments are contingent on securing a mandate at the next election, with the time between now and then spent consulting and building the case for action.

The policy areas Burnham wants to spend his capital on are also the areas which, strategically, may unite the left or, at the very least, make tactical voting for a Labour candidate in a multi-way seat more palatable as a way to block Reform.

I don't think the prospect of an election next year can be taken off the table. Indeed, some MPs I've spoken to are already talking to their constituents and CLPs about preparing for that eventuality since the leader's speech.

The argument Burnham didn’t make

It's worth observing that last year, Starmer's speech to conference was very much focused on Farage and Reform, and on pushing back against the growing forces of ethno-nationalism dividing the country.

Starmer built an argument that was never repeated after conference, but it did lay the foundations for a future leader to pick up and run with. Burnham decided not to.

In fact, his speech, as effective as it was, was very light on explicit messaging about what this country is in terms of valuing multiculturalism, diversity and openness.

There were references, of course, and my sense is that these are issues the Prime Minister probably feels strongly about. But does he have the tools or the confidence at this moment to articulate a vision, or to sustain and prosecute an argument, on them?

If he does want to make the UK's relationship with the EU a core part of his legacy, he will inevitably have to grapple with questions of British identity, multiculturalism and immigration sooner rather than later.

That might provide an opportunity for organisations that desperately want the government to lead in pushing back against the populist right to persuade it to show greater leadership on these issues.

What happens now?

Finally, in terms of what happens now, I would expect Burnham to personally own much of the government's comms in the run-up to the election, drawing on a personal authority that has been dramatically enhanced by that speech, and acting as communicator-in-chief for the government.

That means fewer opportunities for other Cabinet ministers to shine, but it does mean Labour is leveraging the most important asset it has right now: Andy Burnham.

You can also read my detailed analysis of Andy Burnham’s speech in my latest edition of “The Debate Desk” on Substack.