Four flavours of fairness

Fairness was a common thread running through the Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem and Reform conferences this year

With conference season (almost) at an end, lobbyists, campaigners and politicians can finally return home, pack away the pull-up banners, and take a brief breath. At the Fairness Foundation, we attended four conferences this year - in chronological order, Reform, Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative. At each, we were grateful for the opportunity to engage with acquaintances old and new about the competing visions now being put before the British people, fifteen months into the new government.

As has been widely discussed elsewhere, this year’s conferences were high-stakes events for both Labour and the Conservatives, shaped by the ongoing leadership debates in each party that dominated both online and in-person discussions. Yet the real story, for us, was that by the end of this conference season, the political dividing lines between the parties and the contours of the next phase of British politics appeared clearer than before. At his party’s conference, the Prime Minister sought to sharpen these distinctions, setting out his pitch for a progressive Labour Party that takes the fight to Reform, in pursuit of his vision of “a fairer country”. It was an assured performance from the Prime Minister and one that has the potential to delineate the shape of our politics, at least in the short-term, albeit that it still lacks a detailed, positive policy prospectus.

For the Conservatives’ part, Kemi Badenoch also sought to outline a clearer narrative, describing a vision of a fiscally responsible, centre-right party. In her speech, the value of fairness was central to her proposal to abolish stamp duty, which she described as “a key to unlock a fairer and more aspirational society.” As we have previously observed, the right tends to define fairness in terms of opportunity and aspiration, a contrast to the Labour Party’s conception of fairness, which focuses (slightly) more on outcomes and equity.

We would be the first to acknowledge that fairness can carry different meanings across the political spectrum. On some issues, such as the two-child limit, which sparked lively debate at more than one conference, fairness was invoked both to defend and to oppose change. And while many Labour supporters saw the recent welfare reform package as incompatible with their understanding of fairness, Kemi Badenoch’s speech by contrast framed increased welfare spending as unfair, accusing her political opponents of not caring about fairness at all: “They don’t care that it’s not fair, but we do.” Similarly, in his address Mel Stride referenced the need for a welfare system “that is fair and commands the widespread support for those who pay for it”, and invoked fairness when calling for a system that would only be available to British citizens.

Of course, the looming Budget inevitably cast a long shadow over proceedings at both conferences. The Chancellor put fairness at the heart of her highly-anticipated address, referencing a Britain “where hard work is matched by fair reward”, describing her previous rewriting of the fiscal rules to tackle regional inequality, and outlining the need to build “a better, fairer, more prosperous Britain.” Yet the challenges facing the Chancellor at the Budget in this regard are considerable, and matching her rhetoric of fairness with real policy change will be far more difficult. We will continue to press the case that the most effective way for the Chancellor to meet those challenges is through a fairer tax system, one that rebalances the burden away from income and towards wealth. (On this front, we will be back in your inboxes on Wednesday, when we publish a new report on how taxing wealth can tackle wealth inequality while raising revenues and boosting growth.)

The Liberal Democrats entered their conference buoyed by their strongest-ever seat total and the sense of renewed political relevance that came with it. Leader Ed Davey promised a Britain that “stands proud for its values”, including “fairness and prosperity”. Across multiple sessions, the party reiterated its intention to uphold those values while positioning itself as the liberal alternative to Reform.

So it is unsurprising that across these three conferences, fairness was a common rhetorical touchstone. As our polling has shown, fairness resonates across the political spectrum, and this universal appeal is precisely what makes it such a powerful foundation for a unifying national narrative, one that could enable parties to speak to the whole country rather than to particular segments of it.

Yet while each of these three conferences appealed to our shared sense of fairness, it’s at the Reform conference where the sentiment of unfairness is perhaps driving most of the party’s support. The mood in Birmingham was jubilant, reflecting Reform’s growing political momentum, yet the party still has work to do in setting out a fully fleshed-out policy platform - a challenge that its recent appointments appear designed to address. Reform’s membership is increasingly diverse, encompassing both advocates of a low-tax, small-state Britain and those calling for renationalised utilities and greater intervention to support “left behind” places. Its support also spans a growing range of age groups, united by a shared conviction that Britain is broken. Such diversity may be sustainable several years away from an election, but the party will soon need to translate it into a coherent policy programme.

Many of Reform’s supporters are disillusioned and have been ignored by mainstream politics, including a significant number of non-voters who are drawn to its message. Our recent paper Rigged highlights how the deep unfairness of the current social contract, underpinned by stark inequalities of wealth, has fuelled support for populist parties like Reform. If the polls prove accurate and Reform enters government, it will need to offer convincing policy proposals that address the real and longstanding concerns of those who have been disappointed before.

Each party needs a credible plan to confront the deep unfairness embedded in our current system and to restore public faith in politics and trust in government. While immigration has dominated the political conversation so far this term, politicians should recognise that inequality, too, demands more of their attention. For Reform, fairness underpins its appeal to disaffected voters, while for the other three main parties (not to mention the Greens and parties based outside Westminster), articulating a story of a fairer Britain will be key to meeting the challenge of an insurgent Reform party while staying true to their core values.

As conference season winds down and Westminster gets back to business, we will continue to make the case that fairness should guide British politics, not only as a rhetorical device, but as the north star of policymaking. Fairness must also be clearly defined (as through our five Fair Necessities) and embedded in public policy. The next major test of fairness will come with the Chancellor’s Budget in just over a month. Each party should expect to be held to the standard of fairness, both in the policies they propose and in the scrutiny they face.