Keir Starmer speaks at Labour’s conference (Image: Getty)
Labour’s annual conference was a chance for Keir Starmer and his team to show the nation what they’ve achieved after winning last year’s general election, and prove they still have a chance of winning the next one.
It was never going to be easy, given Labour’s dismal poll ratings which show Reform well ahead. But Labour managed to make a difficult situation worse.
Here are five of the biggest conference blunders:
1. Declaring Reform UK “racist”
Keir Starmer knows that millions of people share Reform’s anger at small boat crossings, and concern about the high level of legal immigration. In fact, Sir Keir has said he’s also worried about these things. So why call Reform racist for promising to do something about it?
It’s meant that the Prime Minister faced a series of TV and radio interviews where he had to explain carefully that he didn’t think the average Reform voters was a racist, just leader Nigel Farage.
Back in the US Presidential election in 2016, candidate Hillary Clinton said supporters of her rival Donald Trump were a “basket of deplorables”. That insult simply made them more determined to vote for Mr Trump, and Sir Keir’s comments about Reform may only strengthen support for Mr Farage.
He also blundered by declaring Mr Farage an “enemy”. When right-wing politicians use that sort of language about political opponents, they are accused of encouraging division and even violence. Now, Sir Keir finds himself accused of the same thing.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
2. No popular policies
Party leaders usually use their party conference to announce big policy ideas, and many Labour activists had been hoping Sir Keir would announce an end of the two-child benefit cap, which campaigners say is essential to cut poverty (although it would also be expensive).
But it seems Labour is still trying to make the sums add up. Instead, all we’ve had from Labour this year is a plan for an improved NHS app – probably a good thing, but not very exciting – and a controversial proposal for digital ID “cards”, which many people oppose. There was no big announcement about helping struggling families pay their bills, cracking down on crime or finally closing down those asylum hotels.
3. That ID cards announcement
It was officially announced on the first day of conference, and sparked predictable outrage.
The thing is, the Government isn’t planning to create cards at all. They are really proposing a new mobile phone app, where people can do things like access their tax records or apply for a new driving licence. All this stuff is already online, but spread across different websites. The idea of creating one app so it’s all in the same place isn’t so crazy. But in a desperate effort to appear tough, Labour made it sound like they are creating a police state.
4. The civil war continues
Former Labour leader Gordon Brown destroyed a Labour leadership rival’s chances with seven words, at Labour’s conference in 2008.
Mr Brown said: “This is no time for a novice.” That was all it took to show who was in charge.
But Labour’s event this year was dominated by speculation about how long Sir Keir could stay in the job, and whether Andy Burnham might one day take over. Sir Keir tried to end the threat by suggesting in so many words that Mr Burnham would destroy the economy like Liz Truss, but that just kept Labour’s civil war going.
5. Banning Owen Jones
Not everybody is a fan of Owen Jones, the left-wing journalist and campaigner who was a vocal supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and now launches furious attacks on Keir Starmer.
But Labour’s decision to revoke Mr Jones’s conference pass just makes it look like they are scared of criticism.
The 5 clueless mistakes Starmer and pals made at conference that mean Labour is finished
Keir Starmer arrived at Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool facing pressure from several directions. Reform UK was making gains in opinion polling, divisions within Labour were increasingly visible, and questions were being raised about the government’s economic record and political direction.
By the end of the conference, Starmer had delivered one of the most forceful speeches of his premiership, presenting the next phase of British politics as a contest with Nigel Farage and Reform UK. But while Labour supporters welcomed the more energetic tone, critics argued that the conference exposed five significant weaknesses in the government’s political strategy.
Whether those mistakes mean Labour is “finished” is a political judgment rather than an established fact. The conference did, however, reveal several problems that Labour will have to address if it wants to strengthen its position.
1. Making Farage the centre of the conference
The first criticism is perhaps the most obvious: Labour spent an enormous amount of political energy talking about Reform.
Starmer described the coming years as a “fight for the soul of our country” and repeatedly attacked Farage. He asked when voters had last heard the Reform leader say anything positive about Britain’s future and accused him of not liking or believing in Britain.
Other senior Labour figures also joined the attack.
The strategy had an understandable purpose. Reform was presenting a growing challenge to both Labour and the Conservatives, and ignoring Farage would have created its own political risks.
But the Institute for Government noted that the conference marked a significant shift in Labour’s narrative, with Starmer putting Reform alongside economic growth at the centre of the government’s message. It also questioned whether the new rhetoric would translate into tangible improvements in government delivery.
That is the dilemma.
By attacking Reform, Labour demonstrates that it recognizes the threat. But every major speech about Farage also gives him additional prominence.
The conference therefore sometimes appeared to be as much about Reform as it was about the government’s own record.
2. Turning immigration into a battle over labels
Immigration was another major theme, but Labour’s decision to describe Reform’s proposals as “racist” created an immediate political row.
Starmer attacked Reform’s plan to end indefinite leave to remain, arguing that it could affect people who had lived and worked legally in Britain for many years.
He called the proposal “racist” and “immoral”, while simultaneously acknowledging that many voters considering Reform were frustrated about immigration and wanted stronger border controls.
That distinction became increasingly important.
Starmer later clarified that he did not believe Nigel Farage or Reform voters were racist. His argument was directed at a specific policy.
The problem for Labour was that the political argument quickly moved away from the details of immigration policy and towards the accusation itself.
Reform figures argued that Labour was branding ordinary voters as racist simply because they supported tougher immigration controls.
Labour rejected that interpretation.
Nevertheless, the episode demonstrated the difficulty of using highly charged language when discussing an issue that is already politically sensitive.
Labour needs to convince voters that it understands concerns about immigration while simultaneously explaining why it rejects particular Reform proposals.
That requires detailed policy arguments rather than simply exchanging accusations.
3. Not offering enough detail about the economic future
A third criticism concerns the lack of detailed economic announcements.
Starmer placed economic growth at the centre of his conference message and argued that improving living standards required the government to grow the economy.
But the Institute for Government noted that much of the government’s fiscal debate had effectively been postponed until the November Budget, with Chancellor Rachel Reeves facing difficult choices over taxation and spending.
That left Labour with a political problem.
The government could promise economic renewal, but voters would ultimately judge it by whether wages, household finances, public services, investment and economic growth actually improved.
Starmer did set out some policy changes. He announced that Labour would move away from the previous target of having 50 per cent of young people attend university, replacing it with an ambition for two-thirds to pursue either university or a high-quality apprenticeship. He also announced plans for an NHS online hospital service in England.
But the bigger economic questions remained.
How quickly can growth improve? What will happen to taxes? How will the government meet its fiscal rules? And when will voters feel the benefits?
The Institute for Government highlighted the pressure facing Reeves ahead of the Budget and argued that business would want evidence of concrete delivery rather than simply positive rhetoric.
For a government already struggling to communicate a simple political identity, that gap between promise and delivery matters.
4. Allowing internal divisions to compete with the message
Another problem was that Labour’s conference took place against a backdrop of internal disagreement.
Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, attracted substantial attention during the conference after making comments critical of the government’s direction and discussing Labour’s political future.
Starmer responded by warning against what he described as attempts to avoid difficult economic realities.
The Guardian reported that Burnham left the conference venue before Starmer’s main speech, while the prime minister used his address to argue that a Labour government must be capable of controlling spending.
The internal debate matters because governing parties need to communicate a recognizable direction.
If ministers are discussing one political strategy while prominent Labour figures are publicly questioning it, voters can receive competing messages.
The conference therefore had two battles running simultaneously: Labour versus Reform and disagreements within Labour itself.
The leadership clearly wanted members to concentrate on Farage rather than internal arguments.
Several ministers openly criticized Burnham’s interventions and called for party unity.
But the fact that the issue dominated conference coverage demonstrated that it could not simply be wished away.
5. Relying on rhetoric when voters want results
Perhaps the biggest challenge was the gap between political language and government delivery.
Starmer’s speech was noticeably more passionate than some of his earlier public appearances. He wrapped Labour in British flags, emphasized patriotism and presented the government as fighting for national renewal.
He also listed achievements including the nationalisation of British Steel, the abolition of zero-hours contracts and an expansion of free school meals.
The change in tone was deliberate.
But political speeches cannot substitute indefinitely for measurable results.
The Institute for Government made precisely this point in its assessment of the conference, arguing that the government’s new rhetoric would ultimately need to be matched by tangible change and greater effectiveness in government.
This is particularly important because Labour entered conference under pressure over its political direction.
The Independent reported before conference that Starmer faced challenges from both Reform on the right and potential discontent within Labour itself.
The leadership therefore needed to accomplish several things simultaneously: reassure Labour supporters, persuade undecided voters, respond to Reform, maintain economic credibility and demonstrate that government was delivering.
That is a difficult balancing act.
Does it mean Labour is “finished”?
The conference certainly exposed serious political challenges, but the phrase “Labour is finished” goes further than the evidence allows.
A party’s position cannot be determined by one conference.
Opinion polls can change, governments can recover, policies can alter voter perceptions, and economic conditions can transform the political environment.
What the conference did demonstrate was that Labour has identified Reform as a major political opponent and is now prepared to confront Farage directly.
The Institute for Government described this as a clear shift in the government’s narrative, with economic growth and the challenge from Reform dominating the prime minister’s message.
There is also an important complication.
Professor Sir John Curtice subsequently warned that Labour could be making a mistake if it focused too heavily on Reform, arguing that the party also faced challenges from the Liberal Democrats and Greens. His analysis suggested that Labour’s losses could not simply be understood as voters moving directly to Reform.
That observation highlights the fragmented nature of British politics.
Labour cannot assume that every dissatisfied voter is considering Reform, just as Reform cannot assume that every Labour voter who is unhappy with the government will automatically support Farage.
The political landscape is considerably more complicated.
Starmer’s conference strategy therefore represents a gamble.
He has decided that Labour must confront Reform rather than avoid it. He has sought to reclaim patriotic language, toughen his position on immigration and present economic growth as the government’s central mission.
The five criticisms are nevertheless significant: giving Farage enormous attention, allowing the immigration argument to become dominated by labels, leaving difficult economic questions unresolved until the Budget, allowing internal divisions to compete for headlines, and relying heavily on rhetoric at a time when voters are looking for tangible results.
Whether these choices ultimately damage Labour cannot be established from the conference alone.
What is clear is that Starmer has changed the tone of the political battle.
Labour is no longer treating Reform as a peripheral challenger. Farage has become a central figure in the government’s political strategy.
That could allow Labour to challenge Reform’s policies more directly.
It could also give Farage greater visibility.
The decisive issue will therefore be what happens after the conference: whether the government can turn its promises into measurable improvements, whether its immigration policies satisfy voters concerned about border control, and whether Labour can maintain unity while confronting challenges from several directions.
For now, the conference has not established that Labour is “finished”.
It has established something more measurable: Starmer’s government is under substantial political pressure, and its response is increasingly centred on taking the fight directly to Reform UK.