Andy Burnham’s first Labour conference as prime minister has given his party something it has struggled to find in recent years: a renewed sense of political momentum. Delegates in Liverpool have rallied around a leader who has promised to restore a sense of purpose to the government, while Burnham’s image has become increasingly prominent across the conference.
But beneath the optimism lies a more complicated challenge. Burnham is attempting to reshape Labour at a moment when the party faces difficult choices over public spending, industrial policy, artificial intelligence, national security and the limits of state power. The result is a government that appears more confident in its political direction, but is still searching for answers to some of the biggest questions confronting Britain.
A party finding its confidence
The contrast with previous Labour conferences has been noticeable. Burnham’s supporters describe a greater sense of agency within the party, with activists more willing to campaign and MPs more optimistic about the government’s prospects.
One cabinet minister told The Observer that Burnham had created a sense that Labour could once again “do stuff”, while another MP said the party had “a pulse again”. Such assessments are political impressions rather than measurable indicators, but they capture a mood that has become increasingly visible at the conference.
The government is also seeking to demonstrate that its agenda can deliver tangible improvements. A proposed scheme to help first-time buyers through equity loans and a promise to tackle social care have been presented as examples of policies intended to address pressures on household finances and public services.
Yet the enthusiasm is tempered by fiscal constraints. Labour MPs remain concerned that the government’s borrowing limits and fiscal rules could restrict the scale of measures announced in the upcoming Budget. There is also discontent among rural MPs after a £233 million farming support package was exhausted within hours, while immigration reforms have generated concern among some Labour figures about their potential effect on sectors such as social care.
The Unite dispute adds another layer of internal tension. General secretary Sharon Graham has rejected former leader Len McCluskey’s criticism over the union’s controversial £57 million Birmingham hotel development, arguing that the scale of the overspend demands greater accountability. At the same time, Graham has broadly welcomed Burnham’s political direction, while stressing that the government now needs to translate its rhetoric into concrete policies.
AI presents an opportunity — and a political risk
Perhaps nowhere is Burnham’s attempt to define a new Labour identity more complicated than in artificial intelligence.
There is a strong economic case for embracing the technology. In Burnham’s former political base in Greater Manchester, AI is already being used in public services and industrial production. Supporters of greater adoption argue that it can improve productivity, reduce costs and help British companies remain competitive.
Burnham has also positioned Britain as a potential intermediary between the United States and China on AI regulation and has called for international principles governing the technology. The government has retained elements of the previous administration’s AI policy and promoted ministers responsible for digital issues.
But Labour’s relationship with AI remains unsettled. Some MPs and commentators worry about the effect of automation on employment, while others are concerned about the rapid expansion of data centres and the energy required to operate them. Protests over planned data-centre developments in several parts of Britain suggest that resistance to the technology is no longer confined to traditional technology sceptics.
This leaves Burnham facing a difficult political calculation. Labour could seek to present AI as a tool for raising productivity and improving public services while simultaneously addressing concerns about jobs, energy consumption and the distribution of its economic benefits.
The question is particularly relevant to Burnham’s political philosophy. His emphasis on “people and place” suggests that technological change will need to be judged not only by its aggregate economic benefits but also by its impact on individual communities.
The state’s growing role in the information sphere
The tension becomes sharper when technology moves from the economy into politics and national security.
Burnham has announced a National Centre for Information Defence, intended to coordinate efforts against hostile information operations, deepfakes and foreign disinformation. The government argues that the threat is real: hostile states have increasingly used digital platforms to influence public debate, while advances in AI have made it easier to produce convincing synthetic content.
The proposal has nevertheless attracted criticism from free-speech campaigners and commentators who fear that efforts to combat foreign propaganda could eventually blur the distinction between disinformation and legitimate political dissent.
One analysis of the proposal argued that bringing existing monitoring capabilities together could reduce duplication, but also risk concentrating greater power within the state. These concerns are particularly focused on the question of who decides whether online material constitutes foreign manipulation, legitimate political opinion or something in between.
The government has sought to address that concern. Defence Secretary Wes Streeting has stressed that the initiative is not intended to interfere with people’s ability to criticise the government or support political alternatives.
That distinction will be crucial. Foreign interference and information warfare are established national-security concerns, but democracies also depend on the ability of citizens to challenge governments, including through highly contentious political arguments.
The challenge for Burnham will therefore be to build credible safeguards around the new machinery while demonstrating that combating foreign influence does not become a mechanism for policing domestic opinion.
A government still defining itself
These debates point to a broader question about what Burnham’s Labour government is trying to become.
The conference has demonstrated that the party can generate enthusiasm around a more positive political message. But enthusiasm alone cannot resolve the tensions confronting the government.
Labour must simultaneously operate within tight fiscal constraints and meet demands for greater public investment. It wants to embrace technological innovation while responding to fears about automation and data centres. It wants to strengthen national resilience against foreign interference while maintaining confidence in freedom of expression.
Those tensions are not unique to Burnham. Governments across Europe and elsewhere are grappling with the same questions. What distinguishes the new Labour administration is the extent to which these issues are arriving at the same time as it attempts to establish its own political identity.
Burnham’s approach so far has been less about a single ideological programme than about trying to combine economic intervention, technological pragmatism and a strong emphasis on communities and public services.
Whether that combination can survive difficult choices will become clearer as the government moves beyond the optimism of its first conference under Burnham.
For now, Labour appears to have regained some confidence. The harder task will be converting that confidence into decisions that satisfy competing demands over growth, spending, technology, security and individual freedoms.
Be First to Comment