21 JULY 2024 | ANALYSIS
“Change” was the watchword of Labour’s General Election campaign. The battle bus, posters, and placards were ostentatiously plastered with the simple but – conveniently – ambiguous message. However, this King’s Speech was defined by a change in government, rather than a change in ideology.
In this sense, it was entirely consistent with the election campaign. Labour’s election campaign hinged on change through stability, change through credibility, and change through “mission-led” policy adjustments.
A sweeping ideological shift was never to be: change in government, continuity in ideology.
The spectacular opulence of the State Opening ceremony never goes amiss. The formally impartial monarch reading aloud the politically charged legislative programme of the sitting government is a paradoxical aspect of our political system, but an aspect that suits any sitting government.
Having a partisan legislative agenda with politically infused rhetoric read aloud from the mouth of the monarch is a powerful spectacle. It exalts the programme, and it lends dignity.
In this case, it exalted the message of “Change”, though without the specific use of that word. Nonetheless, it was a King’s Speech defined against the impression of the last government, designed to foster the feeling of change.
It opened with a commitment to “mission-led” governance, with the Government vowing that “economic growth will be a fundamental mission”. The desire to strike a contrast with the last 14 years here is irrefutable.
Labour has resolutely presented the period of Conservative government since 2010 as a period of decline. Their antidote to this was the promise of “national renewal”. This was the vehicle by which they brought across the message of “Change”.
Low rates of economic growth under the Conservatives were also crucial to Labour’s campaign message of “Change”. The Manifesto mentioned economic growth 18 times and the electorate had an acute sense of a broken economy, particularly with a Conservative Party that had shed its reputation for economic credibility. This was how they achieved the message of “Change”.
It is no surprise, therefore, that the King’s Speech featured the National Wealth Fund Bill, which enshrines in law the Government’s commitment to investment-led economic growth.
The notion that Liz Truss crashed the economy was another hallmark of Labour’s election campaign. It was often repeated as a trope by senior Labour figures and, in the public collective consciousness, epitomised the chaos that came to be associated with Conservative government. This was how they achieved the message of “Change”.
It is no surprise, therefore, that the King’s Speech also included the Budget Responsibility Bill, which would ensure that fiscal measures must be introduced with an independent assessment from the Office for Budget Responsibility.
The message of “Change” conjured by the Labour Party electoral campaign was not one of revolution, or even transformation. Instead, the Party placed an emphasis on centrist stability. It was change through normalcy.
The Labour Manifesto was conspicuous for its absence of new policy. Its flagship proposals – such as GB Energy, the Border Security Command, and recruiting 6,500 new teachers – were all announced prior to the election being called.
However, the Party emphasised its stability and credibility, in contrast with the “chaos” of Tory government. This was how, despite the lack of new policy, they achieved the message of “Change”. There was never to be any substantial degree of ideological change.
The King’s Speech, therefore, was consistent with the campaign’s modus operandi: fostering the impression of change through posing as the opposite of the last government in impression, but not in ideology. Change in government, continuity in ideology.
The Speech is also interesting for the six bills carried over from the previous Parliament. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill will introduce former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s smoking ban, for instance. The Football Governance Bill will create an independent football regulator – another proposal from the last government. This is explicit and unconcealed continuity.
That is not a surprise – none of the six bills contain provisions objected to by the Labour leadership. Instead, it underlines the strong degree of ideological convergence between the parties.
This ideological convergence is particularly noticeable on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. The smoking ban is ideologically contested, with 58 Conservative MPs voting against it at the second reading; former Prime Minister Liz Truss and others have opposed it on libertarian grounds. However, it was never politically contested between the respective party leaderships. Change in government, continuity in ideology.
On matters of distinct policy change, it is likewise difficult to identify a marked ideological shift. The Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill and Rail Reform Bill will respectively nationalise the railways and establish a state-run rail firm. At an exterior level, the shift to a policy of rail nationalisation seems like an ideological pivot leftwards.
Nonetheless, beneath the surface, the lack of change becomes clearer. The existing private franchise model was decaying anyway, and the Conservatives were incrementally introducing rail nationalisation.
Many passenger services are already under publicly-owned operation. The previous Government brought the Northern Trains, TransPennine Express, South Eastern, and Intercity East Coast Franchises into public ownership after terminating the previous companies’ contracts, due to failures such as poor service.
In fact, the Conservatives were already planning to increase the role of the state through the creation of Great British Railways, the state-owned firm that the Labour Government now wants to establish. Change in government, continuity in ideology.
Another area of policy shift is planning reform, as the King’s Speech includes the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to help meet the Government’s target of 1.5 million new homes. However, streamlining the planning process is not inherently left-wing and does not represent an ideological shift leftwards. Change in government, continuity in ideology.
And will it actually happen? Only time will tell, but this may not be worth betting on. Planning reform is a fraught issue for any party. Boris Johnson was forced to abandon his plans for radical reform due to a revolt by Conservative MPs.
Any experienced Member of Parliament knows how potent NIMBY pressure can be. Local social media groups, canvassing responses, and their e-mail inboxes are dominated by anti-housebuilding sentiment whenever plans are made for developments on the green belt.
It is, however, the one issue that can fire up homeowners, especially working-age ones that have a less politically engaged disposition. These are the voters that Conservative MPs sought to listen to – these are the voters that decide elections, and many more of these voters now live in Labour seats.
“Change” was the watchword of the Labour election campaign. Change through stability was the message. In terms of messaging, the King’s Speech was a natural continuation of their election campaign.
But that is a different kind of change from ideological change, which this King’s Speech does not much represent. Change in messaging, change in agenda, and change in government, but continuity in ideology.
