Labour is preparing to omit details of how to fund a reformed social care system from its next election manifesto, scale back its plans for House of Lords reform during a first term in office, and recalibrate the way it presents its £28bn-a-year green prosperity plan as it prepares to put a “bombproof” offer to voters before polling day.
After a successful conference in Liverpool last week, which resulted in the party extending its poll lead over the Tories, shadow cabinet ministers are now turning their minds to the precise shape of a manifesto for an election next May or October. Senior figures said the focus would be on producing an offering that was “affordable” in a difficult financial climate, as well as being “credible” and “deliverable”.
The Observer understands that Starmer’s party will avoid laying out a detailed plan for reform of social care, and the politically nightmarish issue of how to fund it, because it fears any proposals would be torpedoed by the Tories in the heat of a campaign.
According to senior party figures, Keir Starmer’s team – while committed to social care reform – do not want to offer the Tories a target that would invite them to attack the plans and make claims about the tax implications. Instead, there would be a general commitment to make changes when in office.
In 2010, Labour’s plans for funding social care were branded a “death tax” by the Tories, and hit the party’s vote badly, while in 2017 Theresa May’s Conservative campaign suffered irreparable damage amid accusations she was planning a “dementia tax”.
“We need to give ourselves cover to do reform in the manifesto, without giving the Tories a target to attack us. We can’t allow the issue to dominate a campaign again,” said a party source.
In his speech to the Labour conference, shadow health secretary Wes Streeting said there was “no solution to the crisis in the NHS that doesn’t include a plan for social care”, but merely repeated promises to create a National Care Service that would guarantee better pay and conditions for carers, and aim to address recruitment and retention problems.
Inevitably, experts and organisations that have been pushing for social care reform for decades – and which have been dismayed by endless delays by successive governments – are disappointed that Labour is not coming forward with more detailed ideas.
Sally Warren, director of policy at the King’s Fund health policy thinktank, said: “We need to see much more detail about what both parties will do to ensure the hundreds of thousands of people who rely on social care get the care and support they need.
“The Conservatives had previously committed to introducing a new cap on care costs and making the means tests more generous, but having already delayed implementation once until after the election, they need to confirm that they intend to see their policy fully funded and delivered and won’t continue to kick the can down the road.
“Labour have so far focused their social-care policy thinking on growing and supporting the workforce – a vital area that does need attention. However, they can’t continue to remain silent on the vexed question of how to pay for the social care we need in society – how to improve the quality and availability of social care, and, crucially, how to share the costs of social care between the family and the state.”
Several Labour sources have also made clear that previous pledges by Starmer and his team to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a fully elected second chamber would no longer be a first-term commitment. Instead, in its first years in power, the party would focus on other legislative priorities such as its “new deal” for working people that would ban zero-hours contracts and end qualifying periods for basic rights such as sick pay and parental leave.
Less than a year ago, Starmer and his team appeared committed to moving towards a fully elected second chamber in a first term. Now several shadow cabinet sources said there was a recognition this would cause huge constitutional upheaval and take up too much parliamentary time.
Instead, senior figures say Labour would look at a more limited set of changes, such as capping the number of peers, increasing the powers of the body that oversees appointments to prevent inappropriate people being given peerages, and possibly getting rid of the 90 or so remaining hereditary peers, in a first term. A fully elected second chamber would remain as a longer-term objective.
In a series of recent speeches, the speaker of the House of Lords, former Labour MP John McFall, has cautioned against moving too far too fast, and spoken in favour of more “incremental” change. These warnings are understood have been taken on board.
With the Tories in ever deeper disarray, and the economic outlook gloomy, Starmer and his team seem increasingly determined to rein back on big-ticket policy ideas, particularly when they would come with a hefty price tag – even if this leaves them open to charges that they lack vision and reforming zeal. Shadow ministers say they have been asked to submit ideas for the next manifesto to a new “star chamber”, chaired by shadow paymaster general Jonathan Ashworth, to check they that are “credible, affordable, and bombproof”.
Party officials in Liverpool were determined to avoid talk of “radicalism” and “boldness” for fear that it would be interpreted as a sign of financial ill-discipline.
While there were some eyecatching policies announced – including a pledge to build 1.5m homes, and two new towns, as well as the creation of a Covid corruption commissioner – the aim was more to promote a sense of responsibility than excitement. “It is all about being seen as the grown-ups,” said a shadow minister. “After Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, that is what the public wants. After them, the mood is so cynical that even if we went big with promises, people would not believe us.”
There is also intense debate in the party about how to present its key policy pledge to drive economic revival, deliver lower energy bills and meet green targets through a £28bn-a-year “green prosperity plan”. This has already been trimmed back earlier this year, with shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves saying a Labour government would not be able to spend £28bn a year immediately but would “ramp up” towards the figure.
In Liverpool sources also defended themselves against Tory attacks that the plan would mean excessive borrowing by pointing out that £10bn a year of the £28bn was already being spent by the government – meaning only £18bn would have to be found.
Some senior shadow ministers also want the word “green” dropped from the plan, and to label it instead as “Labour’s prosperity plan to boost investment and jobs”, because party polling about its “green” messaging has not been positive.
Some Labour MPs and frontbenchers fear the lack of radicalism and the tendency towards caution could backfire. One frontbencher said: “I see what they are trying to do. But there is a danger there: that the electorate don’t give us any credit for being so cautious, and simply think we have nothing at all to say.”