The Social Market Foundation’s response to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s first King’s Speech follows below.
The overall take, Theo Bertram, Director at Social Market Foundation said:
Today we can begin to answer two big questions: what is the point of this Labour government, and how is Keir Starmer going to be different?
This Labour government means stronger rights for working people – with nothing less than a total ban on zero hours working. It means the biggest emphasis on climate change that a government has ever made, with an emphatic commitment to net zero and green energy. It means bringing back into public ownership key parts of our transport network where markets have failed. It means preventing harm to public health by banning smoking and tackling junk food ads. These are big changes and they show what a Labour government stands for.
But it is also surprisingly light in some traditional Labour areas. Where previous Labour Prime Ministers have emphasized spending on public services or raising taxes to tackle poverty, this Labour government remains resolute on growth. There was no concession made on the fiscal constraints. There was no about turn on the two child cap. This is not a plan for tax and spend or classic leftwing redistribution. Instead this Labour government will focus on delivering growth for ‘every person’ and ‘every community’. This is a markedly different way of sharing the proceeds of growth than the Labour governments of Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. This is partly forced upon the government by economic circumstance: Chancellor Rachel Reeves simply does not have money to spend. But this is also partly a clear choice. Not only are Starmer and Reeves determined to show they are serious about fiscal discipline, they also believe that growth – and the fair distribution of that growth – will solve the challenges of poverty and inequality.
We also learned how Starmer is going to be different. In his foreword, the Prime Minister sets out what he calls his ‘fight for trust’ and talks about ending ‘politics as performance and self interest’ and taking on ‘the snake oil charm of populism.’ His answer is ‘serious solutions’, ‘serious government’ and wearing the responsibility of government ‘with the seriousness it deserves’. He talks about honour a lot: honouring the Armed services, honouring the commitment that Sunak made to the mother of Martyn Hett, and honouring the promises made to the public in the election. How is Starmer going to be different? Well, this is going to be a serious government by a serious Prime Minister.
This is also the biggest raft of devolutionary measures since Blair. ‘Democratic decisions are best made by people with skin in the game,’ is a very Starmer thing to say. It’s often said that Starmer is not easily placed on the spectrum of left-to- centre-left but this has always been a core belief, even when he was writing socialist pamphlets as a student. He believes in pluralism and devolving power but as a former DPP he also believes in accountability and personal responsibility of those charged with serving the public. This is likely to be a hallmark of Starmerism over the coming years.
However this is only one leg of the stool. We still need to see the scope and pace of the major reviews (on pensions and social care).
On child poverty, Aveek Bhattacharya, Research Director at the Social Market Foundation said:
“Despite growing pressure on the Government to prioritise the issue, the word “poverty” was missing entirely the King’s Speech, and makes just four appearances across the 105 pages of background briefing notes. Expanding breakfast clubs and legislating for a smokefree generation are worthy ventures, but they hardly constitute an anti-poverty strategy. Labour’s manifesto promised an ambitious child poverty strategy, and on that basis we might have expected new legislation to replace the last Labour government’s Child Poverty Act, which was scrapped in 2015. Instead, discontent around the two child benefit cap – a leading contributor to poverty – is only likely to grow in the months ahead. If this is a statement of the Government’s priorities, it does not augur well.”
On the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, Gideon Salutin, Senior Researcher at Social Market Foundation said:
“The government will be making two big bets on housebuilding. First, that its reforms will motivate developers to increase construction and second, that the new supply will bring prices down. Planning reform is necessary if we want to build more houses in places with high demand. But there’s no guarantee that construction will actually take off in those areas, nor that the pace of that construction will be enough to bring down home prices. Social housing and affordability mandates have delivered those aims elsewhere, but Labour has not committed to either. Council housing was not even mentioned in the speech, and the only mention of affordable housing was through the promise that it would be provided by market forces accessing more sites. Essentially the new government is beginning an experiment: is “unleashing the power of the private market” enough on its own to address the housing crisis? Our history shows it is not.”
On GB Energy plans, Niamh O Regan, Researcher at the Social Market Foundation said:
“Becoming a clean energy superpower is a high aim for the new Labour government, but it is not an insurmountable task. It has promised £8.3bn over the course of the next parliament to help achieve this through the much anticipated GB Energy.
Investment from the company into renewables will undoubtedly be helped along by the expected planning reforms and reversal of the effective ban on new onshore wind. However, a little under a third of UK energy generation last year came from renewable sources, there is a long way to go to become an clean energy super power, and the initial budget to help us get there is relatively modest. It is also heavily reliant on the private sector stepping up and investing alongside the government, and there is some question over whether the government is stumping up enough to stimulate the further investment that is needed.”
On the National Wealth Fund Bill, Richard Hyde, Senior Researcher at Social Market Foundation said:
“The ability of the National Wealth Fund to deliver long-term economic benefits to the UK will depend in large part on how clear its mission is, the way its structured, led and operated – aspects which all need to be set out in clear legislation – and its scale. The fund should look to reflect good practice from other countries and perhaps the most successful example of a state investment fund is that of Singapore’s Temasek. The Temasek experience tells us that key to success will be operational independence, insulating the organisation from political interference, and ensuring it is led by capable investment professionals. It also shows is that a commercially focused long-term strategy, with 20-year time horizons for investments the norm and the ability to reinvest returns to grow the fund are also essential. Finally, the proposed £7.3 billion endowment is unlikely to prove transformational – at least to begin with – scale is needed to secure bigger and more sustainable returns.”
On Employment Rights Bill, Jake Shepherd, Senior Researcher at Social Market Foundation said:
“The Employment Rights Bill sets out to ban exploitative practices and enhance job security, and today’s announcements underscore the new government’s commitment to those goals. Measures such as the ending of fire and rehire, strengthening parental leave and sick pay, encouraging trade union activity, and flexible working were all expected, but are no less welcome. Its commitment to change is supported by the urgency with which it aims to implement these changes, pledging to introduce all legislature within its first 100 days in office.
The eye-catching part is the ban of exploitative zero-hour contracts. This is a strong demonstration of Keir Starmer’s commitment to workers’ rights and to trade unions, which have long opposed low-rights, low-pay work. Some may label this move extreme: some gig jobs work well, and there are no doubt many workers who are happy with this kind of arrangement. A consequence of this may be reduced flexibility in the labour market, which would come at the detriment of some workers. The government has compensated for this by introducing mandatory flexibility in all forms of work – only time will tell if this approach strikes the right balance.”
On Skills England Bill, Dani Payne, Senior Researcher at Social Market Foundation said:
“A simplified skills system, with better long-term planning will be welcomed by employers emerging from recent years of instability and uncertainty. However, developing a “single picture” of national and local skills needs is not a small task, with technological advances liable to have rapid and unforeseen impacts on our workforce needs. The challenge will in ensuring true partnership between all stakeholders. This already looks to be off to a rocky start: Only employers were mentioned in the King’s Speech, with learners, providers and unions notably absent.”
On the Renters’ Rights Bill, Jamie Gollings, Deputy Research Director at Social Market Foundation said:
“Renters will be hoping that, after one last push, a ban on no-fault evictions will finally hit the statute books after years of promises. With no-fault evictions banned, landlords may look for other ways to kick out tenants. The King’s speech briefing recognises the risk of “rent increases designed to force [tenants] out by the backdoor” and pledges to empower residents to challenge these practices. The question is – how? Could the government be willing to ban extreme in-tenancy rent increases, for instance by setting a cap?
If they do not wish to go that far, the rent dispute mechanism needs strengthening in renters’ favour. The planned new digital rented sector database could go further than current proposals, and be extended to track rent levels and rises. Not only would this provide invaluable market data, it could also automatically flag when landlords are using rent hikes to force tenants out, so that the proposed rental ombudsman can take action.”
On English Devolution Bill, John Asthana Gibson, Research Director at Social Market Foundation:
The government’s recognition that greater devolution of decision-making is a key driver of economic growth is the correct analysis. The UK stands out amongst advanced economies in the extent of control that lies with central government, and it is widely recognised that this acts a major constraint on regional economic growth. Efforts to reverse this through English devolution was one of the shining success stories of the previous government.
So the government’s plans to advance and standardise the English devolution framework, and making it easier for areas not currently covered by mayoral combined authorities to take hold of devolved powers, is hugely welcome. The changes will give local areas greater certainty over the powers and funding they receive, enhancing their ability to make tangible impacts on their communities. However, the new administration must recognise that for devolution to have the greatest effect on economic growth, powers of tax and spending must be decentralised to local government too.
On the Better Buses Bill, Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, and Rail Reform Bill, Gideon Salutin, Senior Researcher at the Social Market Foundation:
“By nationalising rail and franchising bus services, the new Government is finally challenging the historical misalignment of our public and commercial transport objectives. These have never really clicked, with the private sector prioritising areas based on money rather than need, leading availability to crater in many areas. Bus franchising will end the postcode lottery that has seen bus service protected for some and not for others, while rail franchising will allow a more coherent and efficient transit system.
Yet key questions remain. Labour has pledged to maintain access to the track for privately owned operators that “add value and capacity to the network” but how that will be determined remains undefined. Further, both rail and bus reforms are unlikely to drastically decrease consumer costs, and with no new money entering the system, those delays and cancellations which have plagued the last government could continue. The new government policy is a bold first move, but it still has miles left to go.”
On Tobacco and Vapes Bill, Aveek Bhattacharya, Research Director at the Social Market Foundation said:
“The Tobacco and Vapes Bill doesn’t retain much novelty value, having been introduced by the last government, guillotined by the election, and now resurrected by Labour. Nevertheless, bringing back legislation to progressively raise the minimum purchase age for tobacco, but it might be one of the new government’s most significant acts. Given the devastating toll smoking continues to take on our society, we should not overlook the significance of cross-party consensus on an internationally pioneering approach to realising the ambition of a smokefree future.”
On the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, Jonathan Thomas, Senior Fellow at the Social Market Foundation said:
“Any new legislation aimed at people smugglers will be primarily to demonstrate that Starmer means it when he says he will ‘smash the gangs’. Actually smashing the ‘gangs’ though will unlikely be achieved through national legislation, and will likely require international cooperation that will be much more difficult, and will take much longer, to put in place.”
On the Children’s Wellbeing Bill, Dani Payne, Senior Researcher at Social Market Foundation said:
“The introduction of a bill to support children’s wider wellbeing is welcome news: Social, physical and mental wellbeing matters for learning and are barriers to academic success for many young people, and it is right that any government should prioritise this. What is actually included in the bill, however, feels fragmented and disconnected from the bills purported broader goal. The inclusion of legislation on children registers, inspections of independent schools, teacher misconduct, SEND inclusion, and the national curriculum are good individually but collectively fall short of a serious mission to tackle child wellbeing. This grab-bag approach of reforms may also pose challenges to Labour later on, risking lots of amendments and a fragmented debate. The missing piece of the puzzle is arguably poverty: you cannot keep children safe and happy without tackling child poverty, which now sits at an all-time high with 30% of children living in poverty. The national debate on the two-child benefit cap has been prominent in the lead up to the speech and feels even more disappointing in light of this bill.”
On the Crime and Policing Bill, Richard Hyde, Senior Researcher at Social Market Foundation said:
“While a number of the provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill are likely to be seen by many as welcome tweaks to existing laws and accelerating useful trends that will increase efficiencies for example, especially against local criminality, the overall impact on crime is likely to be small as it does not, on the face of it, look like it will contain provisions to deal with the biggest volume crime affecting people in England and Wales, namely fraud. It is a crime that brings misery to millions of people each year with a significant international dimension. The law enforcement record against fraud record is poor and the Bill does not appear to propose any changes to the orientation and organisation of the law enforcement response nor the kinds of overhauls to the workforce or long-term resourcing that need to put in place if law enforcement is to have the capacity and capabilities to make a big positive impact on fraud”.
On the Mental Health Bill, Jamie Gollings, Deputy Research Director at Social Market Foundation said:
“The government’s plans to reform the Mental Health Act are extremely welcome, improving the care of those going through acute moments of crisis. There is a caveat, though. Reforms will “take a number of years implement” pending adequate staffing levels. Campaigners will be pleased to see this in the King’s speech but will fear they will be asking “but when?” for months or years to come”.
On the Victims, Courts and Public Protection Bill, Richard Hyde, Senior Researcher at Social Market Foundation said:
“Various aspects of the Victims, Court and Public Protection Bill will be seen as positive developments by many, and reasonably so. However, it is a missed opportunity to propose longer-term changes that would ensure that the current court backlogs are not repeated by making both the civil and criminal courts more resilient and able to deliver justice more swiftly and effectively. The impact of COVID-19 on the court system revealed the underlying parlous state of the English and Welsh civil and criminal justice systems, which have been struggling for a long time. The incremental efficiencies that the court modernisation programme was trying to achieve in both civil and criminal have been swamped by the structural failings that Covid-19 exacerbated. The Bill could have laid the foundations for a more fundamental rethink, and a second more effective wave of modernisation. Instead, it seems we will have to wait for a more ambitious approach”.
Contact
- For media enquiries, please contact Impact Officer Richa Kapoor, at richa@smf.co.uk
