EE#31 4 things & 1 rant from Labour conference

Memba listicles?

This week some interesting things from Labour conference. 

1. Grand political narrative is not the same as making a positive political argument. Half the round tables with policy and corporate people I sat in were crying out for Starmer to set out his big political vision. That would in their view solve any of the public or media discontent. 

Starmer has a political project. His goal is to be a bit dull. The changes Labour thinks the public wants to see are not a big speech with a political theory of change. They are the ability to get a doctor’s appointment, buy a first home or see police actually deal with a crime. Solving these things is a grind not a big exciting intervention. Yes, Labour has struggled to manage the media reporting of that, but it doesn’t mean there is no strategy. 

There’s been little engagement with this government’s politics. Too often because Labour likes growth, lobbyists are trotting out all the lines they used for Tories. There’s been little serious thinking and advocacy about a more active role for the state or the need to do tangible things quickly to build public trust. 

I also find the constant comparisons to 1997 tiring. Public First has written before how much of a different world it is. Blair had a theory of change for sure but he also had a media environment that could all fit in the same room as Alistair Campbell. Part of it comes from the view that, unlike Blair, no one voted FOR Labour in July, just against the Tories. So why not compare to David Cameron in 2015? A man literally elected on “we’re not them”. No one was asking him for a grand narrative. There are just different expectations of a Labour government that make corporates inherently wobbly. 

That doesn’t mean though Labour can’t do more to make a positive case for its interventions - winter fuel payments the prime example. But push for that! If you aren’t asking ask why this Labour government would do the thing I want you’re not doing it right. 

2. Mr Motivator. Somebody not worried about making a positive argument is the Energy Secretary. Politico had a great piece on Ed Miliband's role as minister for Vibes. I’ve heard the same thing from lots of MPs not just because Ed has a lot of policy action to point to but he’s also just really good at managing backbenchers, giving them something concrete and something positive to talk about. As well as the flashy he’s still happy to push through the boring and neglected but important - EPC reform for example. 

3. Local is big but no one knows how. The mayors are out in force at conference. There’s a lot of them, they have powers and they’re accountable. They’re the closest example for many of what Labour in power does. One of the many things these Mayors want to run with is climate and energy. The question now is how? DESNZ’s initial plans and processes have been very Whitehall based. Immediate avenues to unleash the mayors aren’t obvious. If I were in a combined authority I’d be looking at the Local Power Plan and seeing if that money can go further by setting up local public-partnerships. 

4. Community energy is matters to Labour. Corporates have spent a lot of time talking about GB Energy or 2030 but not a lot of time talking about the 8GW Community Energy target. This isn’t just another piece of energy technocracy, community ownership is about shifting who has power and who benefits from the energy transition. Labour wants to be out there talking about it, with concrete ideas on how, but few organisations are giving them a chance or helping them develop policy ideas.

• How are we defining the target?

• What ownership structures are needed, at what scale, for what technology?

• How does ownership connect to community benefits or to community consultation?

• How does it live on beyond the Local Power Plan?

They need more practical examples of community benefit models and its connection to existing community benefits guidance; and, work on what meaningful pre planning community engagement would look like. 

5. We are getting an industrial strategy, soon. Some of the most interesting conversations I’ve had have been on industrial strategy (h/t friends at IPPR and the coterie of Biden officials around). That’s well timed Johnny Reynolds and Rachel Reeves promised one is coming. Two missing pieces / hard questions. IS is a process not an outcome. It’s about prioritisation and making a series of decisions over time that eventual result in a shift in economic structures. We have no idea how to talk about that or how we want journalists to cover it when they’re looking for ‘moments’ and announcements. Two. Lots of US conversation but very little EU implications. The Draghi report has had no pick up or coverage and no mention about its implications for a UK strategy.