This address was given by John Denham at Compass’ 2025 Labour Party Conference event, ‘RESET: Winning a Decade of National Renewal’ on 29th September 2025. Also on the panel was Nadia Whittome MP, Hannah Rich (Director, Christians on the Left) and Neal Lawson (Director, Compass).
I’m sorry Andy Burnham could not be here this evening.
Some people accuse him of changing his mind.
I’ve known Andy for many years. As a SpAd, as new MP and as colleagues in a Labour Cabinet.
I’m pretty sure I’ve known all the Andy Burnhams.
I think this is probably the best one yet.
But let me make this point.
I wouldn’t work with Compass – I would not have helped set up the new Mainstream group – if I thought either were or should be vehicles for anyone’s career development.
The issues that Andy is raising are important: more important than what the future holds for one individual.
It’s all more serious than that.
Whatever our triumphs and disappointments over the years, I expect everyone here has always thought that progressive change would be impossible without Labour at its core.
Yes, most people at a Compass event will be pluralists, willing to work with others. When in my work I argue for the most radical English devolution possible, I work with Greens, Lib Dems and, yes, Conservatives where we can agree.
But most of us have believed that without Labour, radical change won’t happen.
So how did we get to the point where our confidence in our progressive leadership is in danger of slipping away?
Where a government with a huge majority, with so many possibilities, is reduced to ‘not being Reform’.
How did we allow Reform to gain the momentum it has?
Why so often repeat Reform’s language even as we asked people not to vote for them?
Why do we have no story of our own?
I think there are two reasons.
Labour has not set out a clear idea why the world is the way it is.
And we came into government without thinking seriously about power and how to use it.
Some of the articles about Keir say he has often told friends he has no ideology. That there will be no ‘Starmerism’.
I don’t know if that is true.
But I do know that this is what a government with no ideology would look like.
If you’ve been around the left for a bit, you do know that ideology can be the last refuge of headbangers, the people who always insists that dogma trumps the facts.
But at its best, ideology is how we make sense of the world:
Where power lies.
Where wealth is created.
How the economy can be shaped to service the common good.
How the state should be organised to make we sure that happens.
How governments can stop doing things to people and changing the nation with people.
We don’t have story to tell unless we can answer those questions.
And – we won’t be a progressive force unless we know how to use power.
The result is the confusion we all feel.
We were elected promising a whole new way of governing: mission-led government; radical devolution in England.
Not a Christmas tree decorated with narrow electoral promises. But clear progressive visions for the future that would shake up the Whitehall state, empower towns and cities, transform relationships with the private sector, with civic society and the voluntary sector.
We let Whitehall kill all in weeks. What’s left is better than nothing but much less than what we need.
Now I know you may be thinking, ‘banging on about ideology and the state’s all a bit nerdy mate. Don’t you think you’ve spent too much time in universities?’.
‘Why don’t you just make us all feel good by demanding a wealth tax and attacking the two-child benefit limit?’
I’ll tell you why.
There are always issues. There are always choices.
But the abiding weakness of our part of Labour is that we always talk about policy, we never talk about power.
Who has it; how to challenge it; how we would use it; why we would use it differently.
That, ultimately, is how we end up seeing AI as a neutral technology; think there are no issues in embracing the tech bros; or in letting them have our data.
Because we have not thought seriously about power.
So, the first two things I wanted to say.
If Labour is going to remain the central progressive force, we must shape a coherent, workable, practical ideology and world view.
And we must talk seriously about power; challenging the dominance of Whitehall and the Treasury; devolving power more radically than we have dared to imagine; not sliding back on the workplace rights that can give people power in their everyday lives.
When we do that, we’ll be talking about what sort of nation we want to be. Not just about Britain, but England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We are told Keir will talk about nation building tomorrow. That’s good.
Not everyone calls themselves a patriot. I’m proud to.
And in truth very few successful left-of-centre governments anywhere did not have a patriotic national story.
I will listen to Keir’s speech with respect and treat it on its merits.
We can’t just put ‘patriotic’ in front of every policy, from youth clubs to new towns.
A progressive patriotic politics defines the national interest as the common good.
Patriotic because its focus is on the people of the nation.
Progressive because it is inclusive, seeking fairness, prosperity and security for all.
Radical because it challenges the powerful who work against the nation (even while they wrap themselves in the union flag).
Political because it insists on the sovereignty of the people and their ability to shape the nation in which they live.
Progressive patriotism insists that it is the quality of life of the of people of the nation is the measure of policy.
It puts the national interest at the heart of economic policy.
It denies that markets always produce the best outcomes; or that international economic interests must trump national or local concerns.
It makes national-interest judgements on issues of foreign ownership and investment.
It would use all the tools of government: corporate governance; investment and finance; innovation support, regulation, procurement and long-term infrastructure to reshape business in the national interest.
Progressive patriotism is confident in the public sector’s ability to deliver for the public good.
Bring all that together.
What it tells us is that there is no progressive politics without a shared sense of nationhood; a shared willingness to look out for each other in our common interest.
There is no progressive politics unless our national story includes the stories of everyone who is making their life here.
We talk about British values. But there is no progressive patriotism unless we know that British values did not come from the land, the water or the air.
Each, every single one, had to be fought for.
The right to vote; freedom of speech, tolerance, a rule of law for everyone; the admittedly unfinished business of fighting racism, misogyny, homophobia, and religious bigotry. All had to be fought for by ordinary people.
These are only our national values because people fought for them; and they will remain our national values only if we keep fighting for them.
There are three and a half years before the next election. Surely there is enough time to set out a positive vision; to make enough difference to make people feel we are on their side; give them confidence to stay on the journey with us.
I don’t want to see Keir Starmer reduced to some sort of pound shop Macron saying it’s me or Reform. I want us to be the positive choice, and we have time to make that happen.
Footnote:
Keir Starmer’s conference speech addressed patriotism much better than in the past. Instead of talking of an empty sounding ‘love of the nation’ he described patriotism in terms of the shared relationships, hopes and aspiration which make the nation. I welcome this. The challenge now is to ensure that such a positive message is reflected in all Labour’s communications, and not to slip back to the language that did us so much harm in the past year.’
Professor John Denham is Director of the Centre for English Identity and Politics at Southampton University. A Labour MP for 23 years (1992-2015), he was Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government under Gordon Brown, as well as holding other ministerial posts and chairing the Home Affairs Select Committee.