The Chancellor’s speech was interrupted early on by a protester highlighting the genocide perpetrated by Israel against Gaza.
Rachel Reeves’ speech to the Labour party conference in Liverpool today was interrupted by a protester holding a Palestinian flag. After a brief moment of uncertainty, the chancellor, instead of ignoring the protester, decided to respond.
In this response she highlighted how Labour had already recognised a Palestinian state and that they understood the man’s cause, despite widespread criticism that Labour haven’t done enough to stop Israel’s genocide through sufficient sanctions or suspensions on arms liscences. Continuing, Reeves emphasised, “we are now a party in government, not a party of protest,” before listing some of the key achievements Labour have made such as free breakfast clubs and school meals, increased minimum wage, and cuts to interest rates. Ending her response she said, “our party has changed and that is why I’m proud to be standing here as your chancellor.”
This response reflected a wider theme in her speech where she attempted to clarify Labour values, contrasting them to those on the right whilst signalling shared foundations to her critics on the left. In the context of Labour losing support in the polls, Reeves’ speech sought to demonstrate that the government is ultimately going in the right direction, using examples of gradual changes and new policy announcements to reflect a change in priorities.
Throughout the speech, celebration of achievements and the announcement of new policies were juxtaposed with the record of the previous Conservative government to emphasise her core message to, “not let anyone tell you there is no difference between a Conservative government and a Labour government.” The examples she used were the prevention of the closure of the steel factory in Scunthorpe, free school meals and breakfast clubs, and some success in recovering money lost from covid fraud. She highlighted how these measures reflected how Labour is now prioritising ordinary people and announced more new policies which would continue with this goal. The new policies include building on the work to recover money lost from covid fraud through the creation of a new “hit squad”, a library in every primary school, greater regional investment in transport and infrastructure, abolishing youth employment through guaranteed college places or apprenticeships and a guaranteed paid work placement, as well as a commitment to work with the EU on a new youth mobility scheme.
Through these examples, Reeves hoped to demonstrate that Labour is working in order to benefit ordinary people, rather than just those at the top. As well as using this mission to differentiate her party from the Conservatives, it also tied into her line of attack on Reform. She used the objective of creating a society with more opportunities for ordinary people to thrive as being a patriotic mission, contrasting her version of patriotism to a more shallow brand offered by Reform. Saying that her patriotism goes beyond wanting a strong military and secure borders to also include a desire to create a fair society where everyone in the country can achieve their potential. She labelled the type of patriotism seen on the far right as exclusive, and sought to highlight how these parties don’t truly have the interests of ordinary people at heart.
Whilst differentiating her party from the Conservatives and Reform, she also justified the slow rate of change which had left those hoping for radical improvement under Labour disappointed. She said that, “there is nothing progressive, nothing labour, about paying one in every ten pounds on debt interest,” to explain why restraint was needed in government spending. She recognised the “long road ahead” and asked for people to have “faith.”
The speech overall sought to communicate two main points. That Labour has, and is committed to, different priorities than the other parties. That, although slow, change is happening that could only happen with Labour in government and not opposition, and that therefore restraint is justified in order to build trust and remain in power. This approach was intended simultaneously alleviate pressure from both the left and right through signalling common ground with the left and attempting to unmask the true priorities on those on the right.