Labour's first 100 days

Labour’s first 100 days in government has involved drastic narrative changes from the previous, Conservative government. Certainly not without difficulty, Labour are, without a doubt, experiencing teething problems in their early days.

Setting their agenda within tight economic rules, rewriting the rulebook of development and infrastructure, a shift in international policy and internal conflict, the government certainly has to regain the momentum built up during the election campaign in its next 100 days.  

Lowick have taken a deep dive into Housing, Planning & Development and Infrastructure in Labour’s first 100 days in government. Read our download below ->

Housing, Planning & Development | Rob Thirlwell

Tackling the UK housing crisis was a key aspect of Labour’s pre-election manifesto, and it is a topic they have focused on in their first 100 days in power.   

The government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defined ‘grey belt’ land as desirable parts of the green belt land near urban areas, alongside a commitment to focus the government’s governing agenda on an increase to development on the so called ‘grey belt’. In addition, Rachel Reeves instantly reinstated compulsory house-building targets for local councils and reiterated the government’s aim to build 1.5 million new homes in three years.   

At Labour Party Conference last month, the government announced plans for planning passports. They will allow schemes that meet high standards for design and quality to receive default approval from planning authorities. The NPPF also outlined government plans to create new towns and focus on building high-density housing developments to significantly address the crisis that is the nation’s chronic shortage of housing.  

On the whole, central government have acted in an interventionist manner in their first 100 days, often stepping in to improve development schemes. This was demonstrated this week as Angela Rayner approved plans for Marlow Film Studios which has previously been blocked by county councillors in Buckinghamshire.  

Infrastructure | Rory Puxley  

Labour's approach to infrastructure in their first 100 days has highlighted the delicate balance between fiscal prudence and economic growth. This was of course founded on Labour’s election campaign which emphasised "Getting Britain Building" as crucial for national renewal. 

Upon taking office, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a £22bn shortfall in public finances, attributed to the previous Conservative government. This led to unpopular early decisions, such as making adjustments to the winter fuel allowance for pensioners and burning through a significant political capital over the summer. 

Last week, the government committed to investing nearly £22bn over 25 years in carbon capture and storage projects. This long-term investment demonstrates commitment to economic growth and environmental sustainability, though the technology is not without its vocal critics. Then there is the ongoing messaging problem. The identical £22bn figure to the reported fiscal shortfall has raised eyebrows, and is a gift to the Opposition, with some making the obvious comparison of priorities; of reducing pensioner benefits to subsidise fossil fuel-based energy producers. 

Meanwhile, reports suggest government departments are being asked to consider reductions in annual capital spending for infrastructure projects. This contradicts industry leaders' emphasis on the importance of infrastructure investment for economic growth, a stance Labour advocated for in opposition. Businesses are keen for the government to maintain focus on long-term projects to enhance UK competitiveness and attract international investment. 

As Labour prepares for its first Budget on 30 October, the challenge will be to harmonise these conflicting elements of their economic strategy in a coherent and consistent set of messaging. The government must demonstrate fiscal responsibility while delivering on promises of investment-led growth to build investor confidence and public trust. 

Reeves' statement at Labour Conference about moving beyond "just counting the costs of investment" to recognising benefits suggests a nuanced approach to economic management. This unexpected shift from fiscal prudence to a long-term investment view will be welcomed by many in industry. However, given the mixed messages from the party in Opposition, to the early days in government, to the Treasury preparing for a Budget, industry is awaiting financial commitments in black and white before committing to the private investment the government needs to help deliver 'national renewal'. 

To Conclude

Overall, Labour’s first 100 days have been tumultuous. Where internal reshuffles can appear like smaller dramas or internal spats, they will have severe impacts on the next 100 days, both in terms of communication, policy direction and perception of stability within a struggling new Government. There is a mighty challenge ahead for Keir Starmer and the Number 10 team to assure the Cabinet, the party, and the country, that voters made the right decision at the July election.