Archive for: Blog Posts

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.

Written by Michael Kane and Helen Stott on the Vuelio Political Team, reporting from 2024’s UK Party Conferences. 

While the attention of the political media may have been on the movements within the main conference hall during the Labour Party Conference – with senior members of the Cabinet and the Prime Minister all giving significant speeches and numerous key motions passing through – the Vuelio Political Team was focused primarily on key fringe events.

While often derided as expensive for the organisers and ineffectual in terms of outcomes, such a narrow view misrepresents their value in the policy development process. After all, now Minister for School Standards, Catherine McKinnell, started the formation of Labour’s policy on Ofsted last year when she condemned their inspection system for being both ‘ineffective’ and ‘dreaded’ in a fringe event last year. This preceded Labour’s proposed ban of single word judgments in their manifesto, and this was confirmed by the Department for Education earlier this month.

With that in mind, what fringe events this year proved particularly intriguing in terms of policy?

‘Speaking up for opportunity’ by the Oracy Commission

Geoff Barton, Chair of the Oracy Commission, noted in his remarks that this Labour conference marks nearly 50 years on from the Bullock Report, which considered the teaching of English in schools. However, its recommendations were largely sidelined as the Thatcher Government chose to focus its curriculum on employability. Preceding this conversation around oracy, we have seen numerous different national curriculums in England with revisions coming in 1989, 1995, 2000, and 2014. This comes at a crossroads for schools following Labour’s announcement of a curriculum review, which recently opened a call to evidence. Debates surrounding the curriculum usually come within the perceived dichotomy between more creative and arts-based subjects against more empirically positivist STEM subjects.

In this fringe, the panellists avoided this binary perspective and instead recognised the role that oracy can play in all aspects of a young person’s education. Oli De Botton of The Careers and Enterprise Trust recognised the importance of oracy skills in helping young people in the transition secondary school, further education, higher education or employment – importantly, it is at these transition points that inequality in the education system may be cemented. Speaking to this point, Dr Nicky Platt, Deputy Director of the Education Development Trust, recognised the role oracy can play in reducing the ‘word gap’. In that sense, oracy can play a vital role in reducing the widening attainment gap across income and regional variables in England – that gap has been exemplified by the National Audit Office’s report in July.

Labour have committed to a ‘rich and broad’ curriculum, as per Education Secretary’s Bridget Phillipson’s speech to the Labour conference – however, the specific role oracy will play is yet to be determined.

‘Prevention-led public services: Can the government make its rhetoric a reality?’ by Institute for Government and The Health Foundation

This was yet another fringe event dedicated to the issue of moving to a preventative healthcare model and shifting resources away from primary and community care. There has been a growing consensus among politicians for almost 30 years that this is the right direction of travel – and yet the vision has failed to materialise. Over the past decade, population health has steadily declined, at the same time that hospitals and the acute sector are swallowing up a growing proportion of the NHS budget – leaving vital parts of the health service, like general practice and community services, woefully under resourced. Labour have made it clear that they will not be willing to let the spending taps flow freely, and that improvements to the health service will have to come from reform. The Department for Health is hoping that shifting resources to early intervention will ease pressure on hospitals in the long run and get the NHS back on its feet without spending significantly more money – but will this gamble pay off?

Dr Jennifer Dixon from the Health Foundation made the case for a rewriting of the rules regarding public spending in order to hardwire the prevention agenda into government. The Treasury can be too reluctant to invest in certain areas unless it can see an immediate return on investment, but preventative measures can often take longer to show their benefits. Similarly, Nick Davies from the Institute for Government argued for a ring fenced prevention budget and a cross-government strategy on prevention. Paul Kissack from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation was perhaps the most interesting contributor; he was somewhat sceptical of the ring fenced prevention budget idea, as he thought any technocratic fiddling would be pointless without wider investment to address the root cause of ill-health – poverty. Davies said uplifting universal credit would be the most effective lever to immediately lift people out of poverty, something JRF have been campaigning on for a few years. While there was enthusiastic agreement among the panellists, including Health Minister Andrew Gwynne, that lifting children out of poverty should be an urgent priority, the elephant in the room – namely, Labour’s refusal to lift the two child benefit cap – was left unaddressed.

‘How can higher education help to break down barriers to opportunity across regions’ by MillionPlus

The role of modern universities in the higher education sector and the economy in general has often been disputed, with the prior Government deriding the increasing number of people going to university and the existence of perceived ‘rip off degrees’. Preceding that, the Blair Government had committed to ensuring that at least 50% of young people attended university. This Labour Government has committed to resetting the relationship with universities and supporting ‘every person who meets the requirements and wants to go to university’ in their manifesto. This rhetorical inconsistency over the last few decades illustrates the challenges that modern universities have faced. With this in mind, this fringe event by MillionPlus looked to position these universities as central to Labour’s commitment to equalising educational opportunity and tackling regional inequalities.

Lord Khan, the Minister for Faith, Communities and Resettlement, who represents the first graduate of a modern university to serve in Government, noted that these universities are vital to addressing regional inequalities through generating regional growth. This point was substantiated by the Chair of MillionPlus, Professor Graham Baldwin, as he detailed that 68% of graduates of these modern universities stay in the local areas. To add to this, Nick Harrison of the Sutton Trust elucidated the positive impact that modern universities have on social mobility in their admissions policies – with three out of the top five of Sutton Trust’s social mobility rankings of universities being modern universities.

The role modern universities play in equalising access to higher education and tackling significant regional inequalities in the UK is clear. This is a vital issue for Labour to tackle given its significance. The ONS’ recent labour market statistics in September 2024 elucidated the regional divergence in England across levels of employment and economic activity and the expanding wealth gap between north-south of England, as shown by the IPPR. However, modern universities’ role in tackling these issues may be constrained given the crisis in higher education funding – an issue Labour has yet to propose a long term solution to.

What now?

Many of the speeches by the key members of the Labour Government at the conference focused on emphasising their central messages in an attempt to not rock the boat. However, these fringes provide a more revealing read into the future challenges the Government faces as they elucidate the myriad of social, economic and political challenges the UK faces. By that notion, they also potentially reveal the next steps the Government may take in substantive policy.

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.

When speaking prior to July 2024’s General Election, the then-Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy described Labour’s foreign policy as ‘progressive realism’ which ‘advocates using realist means to pursue progressive ends’. In practice, he said this would include being realistic about the threats that Russia and China pose to our national security, and to that of other countries.

This was reflected in the Labour manifesto as it said, on the topic of Ukraine, a Labour government would work with international partners to enable the seizure and repurposing of frozen Russian state assets to finance support for Ukraine. They also promised to back calls for a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Putin, and to help Ukraine to become a member of NATO.

Lammy previously committed to visiting Ukraine within the first 100 days of a Labour Government, but this was not stated in the manifesto, nor has there been a mention of any plans of this. In Labour’s first few days in Government, however, Lammy visited Germany, Poland, and Sweden, emphasising the UK’s continued backing for Ukraine. Defence Secretary John Healey also headed to Odesa to meet with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. After the meeting, Healey announced that the UK would provide a new package of support to Ukraine. At the NATO summit in Washington last month, Prime Minister Keir Starmer confirmed that the UK would commit to a military aid package for Ukraine which would deliver £3bn every year until at least 2030/31.

When it comes to international development, there were previously some suggestions that Labour would reinstate the Department for International Development (DfID), however, Lammy previously showed opposition to the idea and there was no mention of this in their manifesto. The British Foreign Policy Group said that, because of this, we can expect ‘a lot of continuity’ from the last government – also highlighting that there is little to suggest that Labour will accelerate the pace at which the UK returns to spending 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) on international development.

Labour committed in their manifesto that international development spending would return to 0.7% of GNI ‘as soon as the fiscal situation allows’. Just before Parliament rose for summer recess, Development Minister Anneliese Dodds reaffirmed this target in a written statement. The Center for Global Development said that this target is just one of the seven steps that were laid out by the former Shadow Minister for International Development Lisa Nandy, and the other six should remain priorities for the new Foreign Office- calling them ‘a sound basis for reform’.

Since the Government has been in recess, Dodds has continued Lammy’s globetrotting mission as Labour seek to be active on the international scene. Just this past week, she was in Jordan, where she announced a new UK aid package for Gaza. Dodds also announced £6m in funding to support UNICEF’s work in helping vulnerable families in Gaza. Additionally, following calls from the UNHCR, the Government announced that it is allocating £14m to support Syrian refugees living in the Zaatari refugee camp on Jordan’s border with Syria. The funding will be delivered in September, with £7m going to the UNHCR and another £7m to the World Food Programme.

Israel and Palestine has long been a challenging subject for Labour. The Labour manifesto said the party would continue to push for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and the increase of aid into Gaza. Starmer’s Labour, unlike during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, did not commit themselves to recognising a Palestinian state on day one of their Government, but instead said it will recognise the Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution.

Starmer may find that – with such a large majority – some incoming MPs will want Labour to take a more actively pro-Palestine approach, especially as concerns grow about the worsening humanitarian crisis. Such a shift, however, would strain the UK’s relations with key allies, as well as cause challenges to maintaining party unity on the issue – which is already proving difficult, as Starmer suspended seven Labour MPs on a separate issue.

Lammy also previously said that a Labour government would start talks on the creation of a new international contact group to coordinate with Western and Arab partners over Middle East peace, but there was no mention of this in the manifesto or since – but this may be something to look out for in the near future.

Despite conflict in the Middle East receiving mention during the King’s Speech, only one Bill led on by the Foreign Office was announced: the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) and International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (Status) Bill. It was initially a Private Members’ Bill during the 2023/24 parliamentary year, and essentially means that the UK Government can treat the CPA and the ICRC similar to international Organisations the UK is a member of.

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.