Labour’s steps to ‘de-risk’ the party face obstacles ahead

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Good morning.

During one of the Conservative party’s strategy sessions in the run-up to the 2019 election, staffers met to discuss possible slogans. One suggestion was “end the uncertainty”. That one didn’t last long and largely was remembered because it wasn’t very good.

“End the uncertainty” is a little too portentous for an election slogan, but you can detect the bones of “Get Brexit done” in there. You can also see how that “end the uncertainty” message reflected something that was clear in both main parties’ focus groups and indeed in conversation with anyone involved in that election: that part of why people turned to the Conservatives in 2019 was that they wanted an end to noise.

(This isn’t the only campaign in recent times where that group mattered. In the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, some in the Better Together camp dubbed one of the types they saw in their focus group the “I want my Facebook back to normal” voters who just wanted an end to the continual conversations about independence.)

There are a number of reasons why the Conservatives have not delivered an end to noise since 2019. But when Keir Starmer kicked off his 2024 with a promise that under his government, politics would “tread a little lighter on all of our lives”, I thought it was, essentially, a pitch to the same voters to whom “end the uncertainty” was targeted. It’s a strategy that makes sense but is not without risk. Some more thoughts on all that below.

A walk on the wild side

There are essentially only two campaigns that incumbent governments can fight. If circumstances allow, they can run with “life’s better under us. Don’t let the other lot ruin it.” If the backdrop is less favourable, then inevitably they end up with some variant on “the other lot are a risk you can’t afford”.

Almost everything Keir Starmer does and says is about de-risking the Labour party, or, more accurately, creating the impression that he is de-risking the Labour party.

Reflecting on Starmer’s New Year speech, Robert Shrimsley’s latest column argues that in reality Labour will be rather more radical than the party’s tone often suggests:

Yet for all the talk of Labour caution, if one looks at the party’s stated agenda it is clear that voters can expect a significantly more radical, busy and interventionist government than Starmer’s tranquillising tone might suggest. His will be a very active administration.

From the ambitions for wraparound nursery care in schools and the legislation to offer more rights for workers to the pledge to streamline planning laws — a move that can only mean treading on the toes of local residents to secure more housebuilding — people will feel the footsteps of government.

We are promised substantial reform for the NHS, as yet unspecified action to address the failings of social care and a pledge to intervene on causes of ill-health such as obesity. Schools face another review of their curriculum. Peter Kyle, the shadow science secretary, is working up an agenda to bring artificial intelligence and transformational technology into public services. Labour may not speak loudly about redistribution but it remains an article of faith. Today electoral discipline is holding Labour MPs in line, but in office the demands for higher spending and “fairer” taxes will resume.

All true. There is another issue that is closely linked to why Starmer’s pledge of political quiet is not quite in his gift. While he has very effectively managed parliamentary selections to ensure that the new intake of MPs will be firmly Starmerite and drawn from Labour’s centre and right, the 2019 intake is dominated by the left. Starmer will have to win quite a comfortable majority to avoid ending up in a similar dynamic to the one Rishi Sunak finds himself in now, where everything he does needs to be negotiated past one faction or another.

Now try this

I have very much been enjoying the Brutto cookbook by the much-missed Russell Norman, who founded the Italian restaurant in London. It manages to both tick off all the essential recipes that make Brutto Brutto, while avoiding the problem that so many restaurant cookbooks have where you look at the recipes, admire them, but decide that you are never, ever, ever, ever going to cook them at home. I’m looking forward to having a go at the ragu this weekend.

Another excellent restaurant, but with a cookbook to be admired rather than used, is St John, which has kindly donated a lunch to our financial literacy charity Flic. You can bid to have lunch there with Dan McCrum here, and for a host of FT writers, including me at the lovely Turnips here. (To reassure you: it isn’t some kind of terrible concept restaurant in which the only options are turnips: it’s a wonderful place to eat in the heart of Borough Market.)

Top stories today

• ‘Justice and compensation’ | Rishi Sunak has announced unprecedented emergency legislation to end more than two decades of agony for hundreds of Post Office sub-postmasters convicted in the Horizon scandal.

• Oversight ‘overdue’ on private prosecutions | The UK government missed opportunities in recent years to overhaul the legal regime that enabled the Post Office to prosecute sub-postmasters independently of the Crown Prosecution Service, according to legal experts.

• Khan you fix it | London mayor Sadiq Khan will declare “Brexit isn’t working” as he unveils new research suggesting the UK economy is £140bn smaller than it would have been if Britain had remained inside the EU at a keynote speech today at Mansion House.

• Keeping child health in check | Keir Starmer has defended Labour against suggestions it wants to introduce a “nanny state”, saying he would intervene to make British children healthier and to extend their life expectancy if he wins the next election.

• Building bill | The estimated cost of constructing the UK’s HS2 high-speed railway between London and Birmingham has soared to as much as £67bn, according to the project’s top executive, who said there was no guarantee it would not rise further.