> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.opendemocracy.net/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Suits vs. picket lines: Corporations, class politics and Burnham’s Labour conference - URL: https://www.opendemocracy.net/suits-vs-picket-lines-corporations-class-politics-and-burnhams-labour-conference-2/ - Published: 2026-10-02T16:11:28.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-02T16:11:28.000Z - Description: A few days at Labour conference lays bare the vast disparity in how different groups – big business and workers in particular – pursue their political interests - Author: Ethan Shone - Tags: Labour Party Conference, Labour, Andy Burnham, Lobbying, Corporate power Ed Miliband is on stage, and everyone is having a good time. We’re at a glitzy reception hosted by the New Statesman on the opening night of the Labour Party Conference. The invitation – like all the ‘best’ events at conference, it is invite-only – promised “speeches from senior figures of the Labour Party” and “the opportunity to network with fellow influential guests”. It lives up to both: top journalists mix with party staffers, ministers, MPs and government officials in the busy hall, with a healthy dose of corporate lobbyists and executives thrown into the mix. After all, someone has to cover the cost of the free bar, available and much-used from 6:30pm to 10:30pm. Introduced to much applause, Miliband speaks with his characteristic wonkish charisma and self-effacing awkward charm, the logos of the event’s sponsors – lobbying firm 5654 & Company, Airbnb, Nationwide and US software firm ServiceNow – visible over his right shoulder. To further applause, he says the Labour Party succeeds because of being Labour, not despite it. The foreign secretary would bring that line out again during his main conference speech the following day, when he also directly addressed activists and campaigners who’ve criticised the party’s stance on Palestine. “We hear you, you were right,” he said, to yet more applause. Twenty-four hours earlier, police had carted elderly and Disabled people away from the conference, arresting them for holding paper signs signalling their support for Palestine Action, the campaign group the Labour Party proscribed last year. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/3f/80/3f804bea-4b2d-4ddf-9ff0-6ec7d0afa5fa/content/images/2026/10/GettyImages-2297440002.jpg) Credit: Ian Forsyth/Getty Images) That scene was still playing out as I arrived at Liverpool’s Albert Dock, where protests and demonstrations lined the path towards the conference’s secure zone – the point through which only verified attendees can pass. There was talk that the arrests might be stepped up imminently, that officers would seek to disperse the crowd entirely, but I couldn’t hang around: Labour-linked lobbying firm Anacta Strategies was hosting a discussion (sponsored by VodafoneThree) with AI minister Kanishka Narayan at the firm’s dedicated ‘hub’ inside the secure zone. Over the course of a few days, in this gauntlet of often-inconvenient demands, I watched arch-Remainer Steve Bray croon along to *You’ll Never Walk Alone* beneath a Ferris wheel. I saw BT workers gather in the same spot as part of a protest organised by the Communication Workers Union against a plan to cut 600 jobs in Liverpool. I stopped to speak to a Unison rep supporting a protest by international care workers. I took a flyer from a group of environmental campaigners who want to #StopRosebank, and caught up with friends who’d been at a picket line for an RMT strike over outsourced working on Avanti West Coast. I watched a line of police officers moving in and around a crowd of pro-Palestine demonstrators, still significant in number, despite the thinning out of their ranks through gradual arrests. These demonstrations exposed the geography of power in place across the vast site of the conference proper and its fringe events. Outside, protesters vie for the attention of passersby, hoping some are MPs or staffers or even just party members who can do something, anything, about their chosen cause. They hope to influence their thinking, maybe just by thrusting a glossy A5 flyer into their hand, or provoking them with a striking image, or just by being unavoidably present. It is telling that so many of them come from the very traditions and organisations that Labour is designed to represent, yet find this is their best viable avenue to pursue change. Inside, it is a different story. Many charities, trade unions and progressive campaign groups have stands of varying sizes in the exhibition hall, but the receptions and the parties and the roundtable discussions and the networking lunches – certainly the ones that ‘matter’ – are generally coordinated, sponsored and run by corporate interests. Andy Burnham has described his project as a break from Keir Starmer’s, and more importantly from the policy consensus that has shaped Britain in recent decades. As I’ve written this week, [there are plenty on the Labour left who are enthused by his leadership](https://www.opendemocracy.net/labour-left-reacts-burnham-speech-party-conference-corbyn-unions-pension-nationalisation/); there’s a widespread sense that Burnham has a greater tolerance for the different parts of the Labour tradition, and, at the very least, the left can hardly play less of a role than under Starmer. Many unions, activists and left-wing think tanks and grassroots organisations feel they will be treated more like ‘critical friends’ on issues of disagreement, and believe there are plenty of policies they can help shape. But any meaningful change, for the party and the country, will require going further than naming the ideas that have shaped the neoliberal status quo – “Deindustrialisation. Deregulation. Privatisation. Austerity. Brexit” – as Burnham did to great cheers in his conference speech on Tuesday. It will require the new prime minister to set out concrete plans to address these issues, and, ultimately, it will mean making a choice between the interest groups that have benefited and continue to benefit from these trends, and those who stand opposed to them. It has been said in many different ways that politics is fundamentally about balancing competing interests. But some interests run directly counter to others, so when it comes down to it, politics is ultimately about picking a side – and those able to spend big to advance their cause tend to win out over the masses. I was reminded of this as I hurried past a display set up by We Own It, a group campaigning for nationalisation of utilities, outside the secure zone. The group was asking people to put a coloured ball into one of two boxes: the first if they supported public ownership of water companies, and the other if they preferred private ownership. The former option had significantly more balls, but I couldn’t help but worry that this mandate, if it came down to it, would amount to little up against the suits inside the conference pushing the opposing line (or indeed, the influence of senior No 10 advisers, Varun Chandra and James Purnell, who have previous lobbying links to Thames Water and its shareholders). ## Rooms where politics happens Navigating the vast Liverpool Experience Campus complex can feel like moving through a reimagined, postmodern Escher painting. Glossy pullout signs announce sponsorships ranging from KFC, the iconic fried chicken purveyor, to KBR, a multinational consulting firm with a significant defence arm. Long corridors, staircases and escalators transfer a never-ending parade of suits up and down and criss-cross. Whatever the direction, the destination is always the same: A Room Where Politics Happens. Outside many of these rooms, a screen or sign bears a vague sentiment or question, alongside a note to say who or what paid to have it debated here, in proximity to and ideally involving people with power. ‘Future Challenges in Defence’ brought to you by BAE Systems. ‘Investing in the Future: Harnessing Technology for Cities & Autonomous Transport’, sponsored by Freenow by Lyft in partnership with Labour Tech. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/3f/80/3f804bea-4b2d-4ddf-9ff0-6ec7d0afa5fa/content/images/2026/10/GettyImages-2237901197-1.jpg) (Photo by Ian Forsyth/Getty Images) Inside, the events generally follow the same format. An approving audience watches on as one or more people with some degree of direct political power – a minister, an elected mayor, a backbench MP, a councillor; their seniority generally correlating to the organiser’s political influence and/or the sponsor’s economic power – discuss a topic with one or more people paid to have a particular view on it, usually by the organiser or sponsor (though that of course doesn’t mean they don’t earnestly believe what they’re saying). A political journalist, or some other theoretically impartial moderator, often chairs the chats. As it happened, I needn’t have rushed away from the protests outside the conference on Sunday; I was barred from Anacta’s two-storey ‘pop-up’ space, in which the top level functioned as a private business lounge and the bottom hosted events. Peering through the floor-to-ceiling glass panels of the bottom floor from outside – the closest I could get – I could see a group of sharp-suited corporate types listening intently to the minister, as drinks and canapes were dispatched by roving staffers. This, it turned out, was far from the only corporate event I was barred from. Another private event space organised by another Labour-linked lobbying firm, Arden Strategies, refused me access. The Tony Blair Institute never responded to my email requesting an invite to its reception (sponsored by OpenAI). Turned away at the door of another corporate-sponsored event, a slightly embarrassed junior staffer suggested that perhaps my requests for an invite had gone to their spam folder. I didn’t even bother trying a similar space sponsored by the elite advisory firm Teneo. Even investigative journalists can only stomach so much rejection. A sea of AI-inflected LinkedIn posts confirm that other lobbying firms – including, but doubtless not limited to, Connect, WA, PLMR, InHouse and Hanbury – had a visible presence across the conference. Many will have arranged private dinners and receptions with ministers away from the conference proper. These are the other kinds of Rooms Where Politics Happens; the ones we get to know even less about. ## Exclusive access, closed doors You’ve missed your chance now, but had you been more organised, you could have attended the Labour Party’s Business Leader’s Summit, a one-day event organised by a dedicated unit within party HQ, Labour Business Relations, which took place in a private, cordoned-off area within the conference on Monday. Even time travel wouldn’t guarantee you access now, though; there were requirements for entry. As openDemocracy discovered, you *shouldn’t* be a journalist – none were overly welcome, but especially those with a particular interest in corporate power and influence. Ideally, you *should* be a C-suite level executive. Non-negotiably, you *must* cough up £6,600 (including VAT) for the ticket, on top of paying for travel and accommodation and ‘entertainment’ costs. Had you met these requirements and been allowed in, what would you have found? Sponsored by Bloomberg, Intuit, HSBC and the campaign for Heathrow expansion, and hosted by newly ennobled former Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, the summit provided an opportunity, according to the sales spiel on the conference website, for executives to “network, hear from and talk to a range of elected representatives including senior politicians”. True to their word, approximately half the cabinet was present at some point during the day, including the prime minister, chancellor, business secretary, first secretary of state and City minister. “The format of the day,” the spiel continued, “is designed to maximise engagement, and you will have the opportunity to tailor your day to ensure you are involved in the policy areas which matter most to you and your organisation.” What this means, in a practical sense, is exclusive access to ministers with the power to shape policy directly, through a series of networking events, roundtables, panels and receptions all taking place in an exclusive private area, away from the prying eyes of the press and the vast majority of Labour Party members and trade union delegates. A tech lobbyist I recognised from last year’s Reform UK conference came over to say hello at a reception on Tuesday evening; he’d been to the summit the day before and was helpfully candid about its purpose. “It is worth going to these things because you get to meet the people who make the decisions,” he said, “and you can make the case to them directly**.”** That is, of course, as long as you meet the requirements for entry. ## The illusion of balance This year’s Labour conference laid bare the contradictions that have always existed within the party, but which snowballed under Starmer amid a lack of ideological mooring. Labour under Starmerism was, at best, highly susceptible to whichever interest groups were best equipped to influence it – pitting unions against wealthy donors and corporate lobbying – and at worst happily infiltrated and corrupted by these latter elements. However you view it, the outcome was the same: a party that embraced the City and corporate power while actively pushing out its left. All major parties manage some degree of contradiction, but the Labour Party is the one that is by design supposed to reliably resolve these tensions in favour of the working class, in favour of workers. This was not the case under Starmer; the party adopted a Mandelsonian “Do what works” posture toward big business. But the unspoken conclusion of that New Labour mantra was always ‘...to keep us in power’. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/3f/80/3f804bea-4b2d-4ddf-9ff0-6ec7d0afa5fa/content/images/2026/10/GettyImages-2297053303-1.jpg) Credit: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesCoro As soft-left supremo Neal Lawson [wrote in his recent obituary of Starmerism](https://neallawson2u.substack.com/p/starmerism-an-autopsy?r=fde5g&utm%5Fmedium=ios), the right’s view has always been “that Labour only wins when it persuades the City, the media and a few swing voters in a few swing seats that it is safe to back the party” – that is, to make Labour palatable to capital. And just as the men in sharp suits who pick up half the bar tabs at conferences don’t do it for the good of their health, capital doesn’t find palatable any project that will seriously challenge its power. Under Starmer and New Labour before him, the party got very, very good at accommodating the corporate elite – or “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”, to put it another way. Burnham’s first conference as Labour leader will not be remembered as a corporate love-in – but only because this mode of politics has been so normalised that we no longer see it for the perversion it is. The sharp suits are still picking up the tabs, though – which suggests they believe Burnham can be convinced to accommodate, rather than confront their interests. If Burnham wants to solve the problems he has identified, his policy ambitions will have to go far beyond what the City, or the right-wing press, is comfortable with. For now, the new prime minister and those around him are basking in the good vibes brought about by his bloodless takeover and his successful conference speech. Even the ‘marginalised left’ are happy. Few are looking for these inconsistencies, but they are there all the same, and they are stark; on Monday morning members and MPs rallied against Trump’s foreign wars, the same wars that [a recent donor to the party’s housing secretary profits from](https://www.opendemocracy.net/angela-rayner-takes-cash-from-war-profiteering-advisory-firm-courting-labour/). In some cases, the inconsistencies are even closer to the surface. Speaking from the stage of the conference hall, Jonathan Reynolds, who was Starmer’s business secretary and has been reappointed to lead a supercharged version of the same department under Burnham, told Labour members and delegates: “Only Labour is proudly pro-worker and proudly pro-business”. Reynolds, who had been introduced to the stage by a member of the Community Union and a steelworker, went on to imply his support for nationalisation. “The day this Labour government stood up for steel… and took control of British Steel, was one of the proudest days of my life,” he said, to significant applause. It must have been a different Jonathan Reynolds, then, who when asked about the long-term plans for British Steel on Sky News not a fortnight earlier, said: “I would like the steel industry to be in private hands, that is my preference.” Which begs the questions: which line does the business secretary give at private, corporate dinners? And which is true?