Posted by 
The king’s speech has been delivered, marking the state opening of parliament (technically, this was the first king’s speech with a Labour government in 74 years). The speech was written by Keir Starmer’s government, not the king, and lays out the government’s agenda for the coming year. Check back here throughout the day as The Conversation’s academic experts break down the key policies, from planning reform to votes at 16.
More powers for mayors
Alex Nurse, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Liverpool
The central theme of the speech was around creating a “modern, thriving economy”. Labour clearly feels that the metro mayors and combined authorities are going to play a key role in this. The speech included the introduction of the English devolution bill (ironically referred to as the “taking back control” bill in some quarters) to give new powers to metro mayors, with a focus on economic growth.
One striking thing is that, rather than attempting wholesale reform of subnational (cities and regions) governance, the government appears to be sticking with current structures and trying to strengthen them, by deepening the powers existing mayors have at their fingertips. It indicates that, after 14 years of Conservative reform, Labour feel they got some things right.
The government will also formalise the right to take control of local bus services through a “better buses” bill. The strategy introduced in Greater Manchester in recent years has been working, and is evidently something others want to replicate.
In broad terms, there is no earthquake of reform. Yes, the previous rhetoric of levelling up is being tippexed out. But given almost all of the combined authorities are now led by Labour mayors, it’s no surprise the government wants to give them tools to get on with their job.
Also interesting is the announcement of a “council of the regions”, which gives the mayors a potentially greater voice in the national conversation. For all the rhetoric of northern powerhouses and levelling up, this is something that has, until now, been missing from this debate.
Stability and credibility in finances
Phil Tomlinson, Professor of Industrial Strategy, University of Bath
New legislation has been announced requiring tax and spending plans to be scrutinised by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). This is aimed squarely at underpinning the new government’s credibility with the financial markets. It means the OBR will be required to produce its own independent forecast (and assessment) of all “significant changes” to tax and spending set out in the chancellor’s budget.
This is the new government trying to convince markets that stability will be the “cornerstone” of its economic policy. In other words, it will not repeat former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng’s ill-fated mini-budget of unfunded borrowing for tax cuts in 2022 – for which the Treasury refused to publish an accompanying OBR forecast.
Instead, the king’s speech contained a promise that the new government will abide by self-imposed fiscal rules that effectively will be policed by the OBR. But this may prove to be a double-edged sword.
The UK’s fiscal rules – inherited from the previous government – limit government borrowing and require public debt to be falling as a proportion of GDP over a five-year period. The rules are based on OBR forecasts, but these have often been wrong because it is difficult to make accurate predictions for five years into the future.
Previous chancellors have tweaked the fiscal rules, but there may be less flexibility to do so in future. Given that OBR forecasts and assessments now have a new legal standing, thanks to the plans in the king’s speech, any changes to (or breaches of) the fiscal rules may lose the Treasury credibility in the markets.
Many economists have raised concerns that the fiscal rules are holding back much-needed public investment, which is constraining UK growth. The Institute for Government recently suggested these rules ought to be more flexible in their design and implementation, and should align with the government’s long-term priorities. It will be interesting to see if the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, heeds such advice.
Rebuilding trust in public inquiries
Nathan Critch, Teaching Associate, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham
The speech contained a pledge to “rebuild trust and foster respect”, with legislation to introduce a duty of candour for public servants.
The Hillsborough Law, so named for the 1989 fatal crowd crush, was developed by campaigners working with survivors and bereaved families from Grenfell Tower and the COVID pandemic. It would legally oblige public officials to tell the truth when giving evidence to public inquiries. The intention is to prevent cover-ups of the kind in the Hillsborough inquiry, but it would have wider scope.
Accusations of misconduct and sleaze have escalated over the past 14 years of Conservative government. A legal duty of candour which goes beyond the informal principles seen to govern the actions of public officials (such as the Nolan principles) is a way for Starmer’s government to signal it will operate a more honest and principled administration.
The law would also ensure parity of legal representation for those directly affected during inquiries and inquests – a necessary step to giving these investigations legitimacy.
The campaign group Hillsborough Law Now has also called for whistleblower protection and the creation of a national oversight mechanism to ensure the recommendations of public inquiries are actually implemented. These proposals, however, were not included in Labour’s manifesto.
Opportunities for worker wellbeing and employment rights
Jane Parry, Associate Professor of Work and Employment, University of Southampton
In promising to end “exploitative” working practices, the government can also play a key role in modelling and disseminating good practice – providing employers with tools for designing work systems that build healthy and productive workforces.
Plans announced in the king’s speech to enhance employment rights might include guidance on good practice for out-of-hours and non-traditional contracts, and making occupational health considerations a routine part of hybrid work design. And employers could also look at ways to scrutinise work proposals for any negative impacts on diversity.
The government can invest in trials and skills development around hybrid and flexible working, which would enhance access to decent work and offer greater agility for organisations. These might include innovation around third spaces of work such as libraries or community centres, and other workplace adaptations.
It will be important to ensure that small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which provide the majority of UK employment, are not left behind in this innovation, and that all learning incorporates their unique needs. SMEs require support to ensure they can contribute towards sustainable growth of the economy.
Adapting to the COVID pandemic, and subsequently to hybrid working, has led to the most rapid period of learning in living memory for UK employers. This parliament could be the perfect time to place decent work and wellbeing at the centre of productivity discussions.
Accelerating investment in clean energy sources and services
Colin Nolden, Senior Research Fellow at the Energy Institute, University of Sheffield
Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power company to be launched with headquarters in Scotland, is tasked with accelerating investment in clean energy sources. But it is unclear whether this will be achieved through public or private ownership of energy generation assets.
The establishment of an Industrial Strategy Council suggests a commitment to “mission orientation” – an approach that considers growth and prosperity as the main goals. The plan is to achieve this through long-term commitments to industrial, technological and service innovations which deliver specific outcomes – including clean energy and sustainable aviation fuel.
Meanwhile, the launch of Great British Railways, alongside more opportunities for collaboration among local and combined authorities, indicates support for public sector involvement in service provision at both local and regional levels.
These steps point towards a commitment to protect clean energy deployment that involves local authorities and community energy organisations from market pressures. Further innovation support among immature technologies – such as green hydrogen, floating offshore wind farms and tidal power – will enable more cost reductions. Public investment in mature technologies such as onshore and offshore wind will encourage private investment, while maintaining competitive market environments that help lower bills.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday throughout the campaign and beyond.
Failure to scrap two-child limit on benefits
Ruth Patrick, Professor of Social Policy, University of York
For researchers of poverty and social security, the king’s speech was most marked by what it didn’t contain, rather than what it did. While it was good to see a commitment to legislate on workers’ rights, there was very little proposed that will directly help the record numbers of children facing poverty across the UK.
A child wellbeing bill will be welcome, but it feels impossible to speak of the wellbeing of children while the two-child limit remains in place, gripping around 1.6 million children in poverty purely because of the number of brothers and sisters they have.
To properly address child poverty – rightly called a “stain on our society” by Liz Kendall, the new secretary of state for work and pensions – there is an urgent need to invest in social security, and start to reverse more than a decade of cuts and retrenchment in state support. The 4.3 million children in poverty and their families can wait no longer for change; they need support, and they need it now.
Improving democratic participation needs votes at 16
Christine Huebner, Lecturer in Quantitative Social Sciences, University of Sheffield
The king’s speech mentioned efforts to strengthen the integrity of elections and widen democratic participation. But notably, it did not include concrete commitments to lower the voting age to 16 for UK elections, or to change how voter registration works.
This is a disappointment for young people across the country. Votes at 16 had been one of Labour’s campaign pledges and a mention in the king’s speech was widely anticipated.
Lowering the voting age and introducing automatic voter registration would address two important barriers – one legal, the other practical – currently affecting young people’s political representation in UK politics. There is mounting evidence that voting earlier can help to address declining voter turnout, but there are large gaps in voter registration between under-35s and older age groups.
It would also have been good news for the young people and administrations of Scotland and Wales, where 16- and 17-year-olds are already allowed to vote in devolved elections. Currently, the democratic playing field for 16- and 17-year-olds across the UK is not level.
Over the weekend, Starmer had already dampened hopes about any swift reform in favour of more and younger voters. The lack of mention in the king’s speech shows once again that other pressing concerns, such as keeping the economy afloat or reforming the planning system, take priority over young people’s representation in UK politics.
Getting Britain building could come with hidden costs
Graham Haughton, Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning; Anupam Nanda, Professor of Urban Economics & Real Estate; Richard Kingston, Professor of Urban Planning and GISc – all University of Manchester
To get Britain building, as was promised in the king’s speech, other building blocks are needed first, including more training for construction workers, building inspectors and planners. The speech nodded towards sustainability and reform of building regulations to address climate change, particularly energy performance in new buildings – this will be vital as well.
The danger of not getting these building blocks in place early is that the scale of proposed house building will derail other policy goals, such as controlling inflation, reducing energy costs, and achieving net zero targets.
If, over the next two years, homes are built at the rapid pace that has been proposed, it might contribute to diverting skills from other growth sectors, such as vital retrofit work for heat pump or solar installation. It could also potentially fuel labour shortages and some regional and national wage inflation – mainly in the south-east, where the gap between housing demand and supply is severe, and affordability is an especially serious issue.
While some increase in wages would be welcome after several years of stagnation, it is important to avoid returning to earlier periods of regional skill shortages and wage costs, especially now it is no longer possible to rely so much on attracting labour from EU countries.
So, training enough new construction workers, retraining existing workers, and attracting back those who have either left the labour market or moved into other sectors, will all be key to getting Britain building.
Rail nationalisation can help get carbon targets back on track
Chia-Lin Chen, Lecturer in Urban and Regional Planning, University of Liverpool
The king’s speech endorses the government’s rail renationalisation plan. Great British Railways, a new arm’s length body, is expected to play an overarching role in bringing together the different agents – Network Rail and train operators – to simplify and improve rail services.
There is an urgent need to address these worsening services both in terms of affordability and reliability, and to regain trust from passengers. Electric cars should not be the only solution for a net zero future – rail has huge potential to contribute to decarbonisation.
The rail nationalisation of the 21st century should not be a repeat of the 1947 nationalisation programme. Instead, it should be strategic and look at the bigger picture, taking a holistic approach for both passenger and freight services.
For passengers, price, reliability and accessibility are key. At the same time, the government should plan to invest in long-term rail infrastructure and capacity. This is crucial to ensure the UK’s future mobility shifts to rail as the backbone of national transport infrastructure.
Reforms – but no age limit – for the House of Lords
Stephen Clear, Lecturer in Law, Bangor University
This could be the last state opening of parliament with hereditary peers, with the announcement of reform to the House of Lords. While Keir Starmer previously said he would abolish the chamber in its current form altogether, the plans set out in the king’s speech are notably less dramatic.
Consistent with the Labour manifesto, the government has set out ambitions for removing the rights of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour has argued the chamber has become too big, with too many peers not playing a proper role in our democracy or lawmaking process for quite some time.
But missing from the speech was a plan to force life peers to retire at age 80. This could be linked to concerns that introducing an arbitrary retirement age, and losing significant experience from the chamber, would be too radical. Instead, it is perhaps more logical, with an ageing population and longer life expectancies, to focus on each peer’s capabilities, contributions to the work of the chamber, and ability to fulfil their duties.
There are already legal procedures in place to facilitate retirement when the time is right: for example, the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, which allowed members of the Lords to retire or resign – actions that were previously constitutionally impossible for life peers.
What improving education could look like
Lorna Smith, Associate Professor in Education, University of Bristol
The king’s speech announced the introduction of a bill “to raise standards in education and promote children’s wellbeing”. This legislation is likely to include the requirement that all state-funded schools follow the national curriculum. Academies and free schools will no longer be able to limit students’ opportunities and choices by, for instance, prioritising core subjects such as science and maths over wide technology and language options.
The children’s wellbeing bill looks set to also include a review of the whole curriculum. This is necessary. The curriculum needs to be revised and updated if it is to prepare young people for jobs not yet developed or even imagined.
A significant problem is the importance of assessment, which compels teachers to “teach to the test”. This means the key to revising the curriculum, and also the most significant challenge, is to simultaneously revise what is assessed and how this is done.
Exams, prioritised by the previous government, may not test the right skills and knowledge. A campaign is underway, for example, which calls on the government to reform the GCSEs in English Language and English Literature, describing them as “not fit for purpose”.
Traditional school subjects may be becoming outdated. And, now that young people must stay in education until 18, the question must be asked whether GCSEs at 16 are still necessary. If the national curriculum is to stay, this review must consult widely. It must listen to teachers in different communities, universities and employers – and listen carefully.
Replacing the Troubles amnesty law
Louise Mallinder, Professor of Law, Queen’s University Belfast
It is highly welcome that the new government has honoured its manifesto pledge to repeal and replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act. That act replaced all investigations into serious Troubles-related offences with reviews by an independent commission, with the power to offer amnesty to former soldiers and paramilitaries who disclosed their involvement to the commission.
This act was strongly opposed by victims, all of Northern Ireland’s political parties, and the Irish government. They objected to its unilateral imposition by the previous government and its terms, which have been found to violate the UK’s human rights obligations.
The king’s speech indicates the new government will take a series of legislative steps to address some of the most problematic aspects of that act, by repealing provisions that closed victims’ access to inquests and civil claims, and removing the amnesty for serious offences.
However, the Independent Commission of Reconciliation and Information Recovery will be retained. Given the high degree of scepticism about this institution, the legitimacy of these changes will depend on how seriously the government honours its pledge to consult with the “political parties, the Irish government, and all communities in Northern Ireland”.
Anupam Nanda's research has been funded/sponsored by various UK and international public and private funding bodies and companies, including UKRI, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (formerly), IPF, RICS. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) and Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society (RGS with IBG). He is a board member of the European Real Estate Society.
Colin Nolden receives funding from the British Academy through its Net Zero Governance Programme and from the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) through its Phase 4 Programme. Colin also works as an expert peer-reviewer for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and as a non-executive director of Community Energy South.
Graham is a member of the Town and Country Planning Association and Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society/ Institute of British Geographers. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences (FAcSS). He has received ESRC funding in the past for two projects on planning, plus one on sustainable urbanism and one on flood risk governance.
Jane Parry receives funding from the ESRC and the British Academy. She is a member of the Labour Party.
Lorna Smith is a member of the National Association for the Teaching of English (NATE), the English Association (EA) and the British Educational Research Association (BERA). None are politically affiliated.
Louise Mallinder receives external funding currently from the FCDO and the British Academy. She has previously received funding from the AHRC, ESRC and the Nuffield Foundation. She is on the board of the Committee of the Administration of Justice, a Northern Ireland based human rights organisation.
Phil Tomlinson receives funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) for Made Smarter Innovation: Centre for People-Led Digitalisation.
Richard Kingston currently receives funding from The Natural Environment Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council. He is a chartered member of The Royal Town Planning Institute and a member of the Town and Country Planning Association.
Ruth Patrick's work on the two-child limit and the benefit cap was funded by the Nuffield Foundation. She is a member of the Labour Party.
Alex Nurse, Chia-Lin Chen, Christine Huebner, Nathan Critch, and Stephen Clear do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
