And here are some more takes on Keir Starmer’s speech.

From the New Statesman’s George Eaton

That was Starmer’s most personal conference speech but with serious policy arguments at its heart: growth depends on the active state, workers must be properly rewarded, progressive tax rises needed to fund public services.

From Ailbhe Rea at Bloomberg

Overall, this was a plea for time. Starmer isn’t a man who sees much value in speeches like that — he’d far rather just get on with things and be judged on his record. But with his approval ratings now at the level Rishi Sunak’s were when he lost, there was an urgent need to reset things in the immediate term. Whether his speech was enough to do that is far from clear.

From the Sunday Times’ Tim Shipman

Starmer: very strong theoretically, a coherent argument well delivered. The “if you want this, you’ll have to put up with this” section was very good. Immigration section less persuasive. Still very thin on detail. But his team will be happy with that

From Rachel Cunliffe at the New Statesman

This was not a speech bursting with optimism. Starmer dismissed “false hope” and “the politics of easy answers”. He called for patience, telling the audience: “We will turn our collar up and face the storm.” The speech all but promised further pain in the upcoming Budget, more unpopularity for the new government – we will all soon become as sick at the phrase “tough choices” as we were at Starmer’s “toolmaker” refrain.

But Starmer was right about one thing. Those listening to the doom and gloom rhetoric Labour has leant into these past two months have indeed been responding: “What will we get to show for it?” This speech offered the beginnings of an answer. It wasn’t a magic trick. More the magician levelling with the audience that magic tricks – politics of easy answers, deceptively appealing populist solutions – won’t work this time. And inviting them to come with him to find something that can.

From Jack Kessler at the Standard

The real problem with the speech is that it had no centre. It touched on plenty of issues – energy, crime, foreign policy, migration and public services. But it was not obvious what hung it all together, other than the fact that the prime minister was now responsible for it. All the bases were covered, but few runs were scored, other than a reiteration of the short-term pain to come.

From Adam Bienkov from Byline Times

Keir Starmer’s conference speech may have had some promising moments, but it has done little to lift a growing sense of unease and disappointment within the Labour party towards their new Prime Minister.

From Patrick O’Flynn (a former Ukip MEP) in the Spectator

Keir Starmer gave a formidable speech to the Labour conference today. It was easily good enough to inspire the party’s natural supporters to cut him some slack over the bumpy months ahead.

And this is what Keir Starmer said in his speech about his brother and his sister. He talked about them to make the point that everyone is entitled to equal respect. It is a point he has made before, but these passages were probably the most moving in the speech.

My brother – who had difficulties learning – he didn’t get those opportunities.

Every time I achieved something in my life, my dad used to say: “Your brother has achieved just as much as you, Keir”.

And he was right. I still believe that.

But this is what we do in this country now, isn’t it?

We elevate the stories of the individuals who go to the Guild Hall School of Music.

The prime minister from a pebble-dashed semi.

The working class few who do break through the class ceiling.

I don’t blame anyone for that – I’m guilty of it.

It gives people hope. It’s important to tell those stories.

But it’s not everyone, is it?

And we must remember everyone, Conference …

My sister was a care worker in the pandemic. She’s still a care worker.

Work that surely we know by now is so important for the future of this country.

So Conference, wouldn’t it be great if this was also a country, where because of that contribution, that vital, life-affirming work, she could walk into any room and instantly command the same respect as the prime minister?

There has been a lot of talk about populism in British politics in recent years. In his conference speech, Keir Starmer said he preferred to describe it as the politics of “easy answers”.

After accusing the Tories of treating politics as “an act, a charade, a performance”, he said:

You can call it populism – many people do. But I prefer to call it the politics of easy answers. Because at its core that’s what it is. A deliberate refusal to countenance tough decisions because the political pain is just too much to bear. Party first, country second.

Take Rwanda – a policy they knew, from the beginning, would never work, was never supposed to work. £700m of your money, frittered away on something that was never a credible option because politically it was an easier answer.

This was at the heart of his argument against the Tories. He said:

For 14 years the Tories performed the politics of easy answers rather than use the power of government to serve our country.

In her speech Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, also announced that the government will roll out “independent legal advocates” to help protect the rights of rape victims as cases go through courts. She explained:

]In Northumberland, back in 2018, a radical new model evolved – developed by one pioneering Labour woman, Dame Vera Baird KC, here with us today, and delivered by another, Kim McGuinness. They introduced a historic innovation into our legal system Independent Legal Advocates. Who ensured that victims’ interests were represented, without fear or favour, just like a defendant’s.

For the first time, victims were able to seek counsel from lawyers who were there for them, and them alone. They ensured that victims of rape knew their rights, and could challenge decisions they believe are wrong. In Northumberland, two out of three challenges to a request for victims’ data were successful. The number of indiscriminate requests reduced dramatically, and the efficiency of trials improved as well.

Today, I can proudly announce that – from next year – this government will begin to roll out independent legal advocates. The first step to delivering our manifesto promise of having an independent advocate for rape victims in every part of the country. They do not undermine the right to a fair trial. They do not prevent evidence from coming to light. They simply take the rights victims already have, and make them a reality. And, by so doing, they rebalance the scales of justice.

Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, has announced that the government wants to cut the number of women going to jail. She explained why in her speech to the Labour conference. She told delegates:

Now, there will always be women imprisoned for the protection of the public. That will never change. But we imprison women on minor charges to a far greater degree than men.

Around two thirds did not commit a violent crime. Yet they are sent into prisons that are desperate places. Self-harm in women’s prisons is nine-times higher than in the male estate. But perhaps worst of all, women’s prisons are hurting mothers and breaking homes.

With only a few women’s prisons, dotted across the country, women are often held far from their families, over half are mothers. The damage passes down generations, with three quarters of children leaving the family home when their mother is sent to jail.

Some women enter prison pregnant with around 50 children a year starting their lives in prison. Tragically women losing their children in childbirth. Conference, let me be clear. Nobody wants to live in a world where children are born in prison. But that is the world we live in.

And for all that harm, what do we get. For women, prison isn’t working. Rather than encouraging rehabilitation, prison forces women into a life of crime. After leaving a short custodial sentence, a woman is significantly more likely to commit a further crime than one given a non-custodial sentence. The shameful fact is we have known all this for two decades.

And this is what Mahmood said about how she would reduce the number of women in jail.

I am today announcing that this government will launch a new body, the Women’s Justice Board. Its goal will be clear. To reduce the number of women going to prison, with the ultimate ambition of having fewer women’s prisons.

In spring next year, it will publish a new strategy, focused on three things. Firstly, how we intervene earlier, looking at how to resolve cases before they go to court, secondly, how we make community support – such as residential women’s centres – a viable alternative to prison, and thirdly, how we address the acute challenge of young women in custody, who are less than a tenth of the population, but account for over a third of self-harm.

As part of this work, we will embrace the expertise of the voluntary sector. We won’t just invite them to join us, we will ask them to report on our progress, publicly, holding us to account.

Labour pulls vote on Border Security Command motion following criticism from unions and leftwing activists

Aletha Adu

Labour has withdrawn a conference vote on its new border security proposals which would have committed the party to deport more asylum seekers more quickly, designate more countries as ‘safe’ in order to deport asylum seekers to them and create more counter-terror laws to ‘tackle’ irregular arrivals.

The party pulled the vote soon after Keir Starmer said in his speech:

I will never accept the argument made not just by the usual suspects, but by people who should have known better, who said that millions of people concerned about immigration are one and the same thing as the people who smashed up businesses.

Who targeted mosques.

Attempted to burn refugees.

Scrawled racist graffiti over walls.

Nazi salutes at the cenotaph.

Attacked NHS nurses.

And told people, with different coloured skin, people who contribute here, people who grew up here, that they should “go home”.

The vote was brought forward by the Wellingborough and Rushden CLP and seconded by the Hammersmith and Chiswick CLP but has sparked criticism from leftwing affiliated groups and MPs who have questioned the party’s immigration stance including Nadia Whittome who was pictured at Labour conference holding a banner opposing the motion. The Fire Brigade union, Unite, CWU and Unison were expected to vote against the motion.

Bridget Chapman, a spokesperson for the Labour Campaign for Free Movement said:

The Border Security Command motion would have called on Labour to adopt many of the worst aspects of the Tories brutal and immoral border policy.

The withdrawal of the motion is a clear sign that the Labour leadership knew it would lose. They know that party members and trade unions do not support this agenda.

The policy proposed in this motion has been praised by far-right parties and figures across Europe. Those who support such a policy should have the courage to put it to a democratic vote and see it defeated.

The government cannot legitimately implement a policy which they know does not have the support of conference.

Labour must offer an alternative to hate and border-building. We need decent jobs, homes and public services, and a politics of working class unity.

Here is the passage from Keir Starmer’s speech where he addressed the question: what is the light at the end of the tunnel? He said:

Still that question calls to us, “What will we get to show for it?”

So let me answer that directly and address anyone nervous about the difficult road ahead, because I know this country is exhausted by and with politics.

I know that the cost-of-living crisis drew a veil over the joy and wonder in our lives, and that people want respite and relief. May even have voted Labour for that reason.

So first, let me be clear.

Our project has not and never will change.

I changed the Labour party to restore it to the service of working people and that is exactly what we will do for Britain.

But I will not do it with easy answers.

I will not do it with false hope.

Not now, not ever.

That is how we got here in the first place.

So I know, after everything you’ve been through, how hard it is to hear a politician ask for more.

But deep-down, I think you also know that our country does need a long-term plan and that we can’t turn back.

The state of our country is real.

However, I would also say this. This is a Government of Service. And that means, whether we agree or not, I will always treat you with the respect of candour, not the distraction of bluster.

And the truth is that if we take tough long-term decisions now, if we stick to the driving purpose behind everything we do – higher economic growth so living standards rise in every community; our NHS facing the future – waiting lists at your hospital down; safer streets in your community; stronger borders; more opportunities for your children; clean British energy powering your home – then that light at the end of this tunnel, that Britain that belongs to you, we get there much more quickly.

And look – I understand many of the decisions we must take will be unpopular.

If they were popular – they’d be easy. But the cost of filling that black hole in our public finances, that will be shared fairly.

Steven Swinford from the Times sees this as “a very explicit suggestion that higher taxes will be necessary to improve public services”.

Libby Brooks

While the Scottish government’s energy secretary, Gillian Martin, welcomed confirmation that GB Energy will be headquartered in Aberdeen, she also urged her UK counterparts to “make sure that this announcement brings real decision making to Aberdeen and adds value to the great work already taking place in the energy transition.”

Martin is thought to have a decent working relationship with her opposite number, Ed Milliband, working well together over the Grangemouth oil refinery transition proposals, but the SNP has been highly critical of Labour energy policy, warning before the election that Starmer risked 10,000 jobs with his windfall tax back in February.

There’s yet to be any confirmation of how many jobs GB Energy – which will also operate sites in Glasgow and Edinburgh – will provide, though it’s the projects it funds that are likely to have the most impact on a sustainable transfer of jobs to renewables.

On a visit to Aberdeen last week, I detected plenty of residual scepticism about the company, with lots of appetite for more certainty about what it will do in practice, in particular from younger people who were concerned that they were entering an industry where they could be facing mass redundancies before they were established.

One of the best passages in Keir Starmer’s speech come when he said politicians must be honest about the trade-offs involved in politics. Here is it in full.

More broadly, I also say this. That as we take on those massive challenges the Tories ignored, the time is long overdue for politicians to level with you about the trade-offs this country faces.

Because if the last few years have shown us anything, it’s that if you bury your head because things are difficult, your country goes backwards.

So if we want justice to be served some communities must live close to new prisons.

If we want to maintain support for the welfare state, then we will legislate to stop benefit fraud. Do everything we can to tackle worklessness.

If we want cheaper electricity, we need new pylons overground otherwise the burden on taxpayers is too much.

If we want home ownership to be a credible aspiration for our children, then every community has a duty to contribute to that purpose.

If we want to tackle illegal migration seriously, we can’t pretend there’s a magical process that allows you to return people here unlawfully without accepting that process will also grant some people asylum.

If we want to be serious about levelling-up, then we must be proud to be the party of wealth creation. Unashamed to partner with the private sector.

And perhaps most importantly of all, that just because we all want low taxes and good public services that does not mean that the iron law of properly funding policies can be ignored, because it can’t. We have seen the damage that that does and I will not let that happen again. I will not let Tory economic recklessness hold back the working people of this country.

Severin Carrell

Blair McDougall, a new Scottish Labour MP, has said the party should approach its often hefty election majorities “with trepidation” because they are now much more fragile than in the past.

The ex-chief executive of the Better Together campaign, which won the Scottish independent referendum in 2014, McDougall has since been a political strategist and a consultant to democracy activists in Belarus, Kosovo and Serbia.

He told a Fabian’s event at Labour conference he was delighted to win East Renfrewshire, one of Scotland’s most volatile three-way marginals, for Labour at the general election with the largest increase in the vote share of any UK constituency. He said:

I view that not with a reason for celebration but maybe for trepidation.

An electorate which can take me from 18,000 votes behind to 8,500 votes ahead in an election can just as easily take it away.

This is not just a distinctly Scottish question, even though the very close link between constitutional preferences and party support, which has dominated every election since the referendum, was now broken in Scotland.

If you look at global politics and British politics since then you can see that old tribal loyalties behind parties has largely evaporated. At every election that coalition and that relation with voters needs to be remade and rebuilt.

If we are honest in terms of our result in Scotland, we were able to reframe the conversation away from the constitutional debate because the conversation was largely taking place somewhere else. The conservation was taking place across the UK in a UK context about change.

After 10 years where Labour felt it was their job to defeat the SNP in an argument about independence, “we need to begin to understand that is not the test for the next decade”, McDougall said.

While the yes/no divisions in Scotland may not have changed much since 2014, the constitutional debate “is now in the background of people’s minds”, he argued. He went on:

We don’t keep it there by continuing to want to defeat nationalism as a political project. We need to want to defeat poverty, injustice, poor educational standards, waiting lists, and that is a matter of political leadership but is also a matter of [equipping] our activists with the confidence to step back from that argument [and] remind them the way of winning that argument is by not having it.

In his speech Keir Starmer confirmed that the GB Energy HQ will be based in Aberdeen.

Labour had already said it would be in Scotland and, given Aberdeen is the energy capital of Scotland, it was expected to get the GB Energy head office.

Starmer said:

Today I can confirm that the future of British energy will be powered, as it has been for decades by the talent and skills of the working people in the Granite City with GB Energy based in Aberdeen.