Some of the world’s biggest and richest firms and their bosses mixed with policymakers at an International Investment Summit at the City of London’s prestigious Guildhall on Monday night. Participants came from the US, the Gulf, Asia and beyond.

It was significant because for the first time a UK government took the initiative to organize a summit of this scale to tell investors that Britain’s doors were open to them. A government press release claimed the summit secured £63 billion ($82.5 billion) in investment and the creation of 38,000 jobs in the UK. It called the figures “record-breaking.”

It was symbolic because the current party in power at Westminster seemed to move away, to some extent, from its traditional position on certain topics. As one observer commented, the Labour Party, historically, is not considered ‘best bedfellows’ with the corporate world. For a Prime Minister of that party to host some of the world’s top corporate figures seems to send a clear message of change.

The government has called the summit a huge success. Some of the participants also reacted warmly to what was said by the UK’s political leaders. But others accused the government of giving in to overseas pressure around the issue of regulation. There was also criticism of the ‘lack of detail’ in both the speeches and the press releases that came from the government.

Restoring the UK’s reputation

In the build-up to the Summit and during their speeches, both Prime Minister Starmer and the Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves spoke about the importance of the gathering to help Britain regain its place and reputation in global business circles. The message to investors was simple. Britain is a safe and stable place to invest in and operate from.

Attorney General Richard Hermer, an old friend and ally of the PM, said it was important to “reestablish the UK as a global leader on the rule of law.” In an interview with the FT he said: “A new government coming out to say we are good faith actors on the international stage, that when we sign a treaty we’re going to keep to it and not seek to wriggle out of it within five minutes, before the ink is dry, is so valuable for investment purposes.”

Reeves said the investment secured as part of the summit made her more optimistic about Britain’s future. In a press release she said: “It’s a sign of the confidence in the British economy. And it matters because it will support the growth of businesses big and small across the UK.”

Anders Opedal, boss of Norwegian Energy giant Equinor, said: “I think the government are putting forward a very good strategy for how to improve, working together with the private sector. Now it is about execution and getting execution right.”

Too early to judge

But not everyone was convinced about the ‘total success’ of the Summit. Former City minister and Conservative MP Andrew Griffith said the government lacked consistency in supporting businesses. He added: “Labour’s policy towards wealth creating investors is as consistent as a weathercock in a gale. One minute, canapés and cocktails; the next, talk of hiking capital gains tax and crushing non-doms.”

The BBC’s business editor Simon Jack said it was hard to say whether the gathering was a success or a failure. In an article for the BBC he said a lot depends on the budget later this month. “These numbers are hard to judge. You never know how many of these investments would have been made anyway but are held back or accelerated to coincide with these events,” he added.

Other analysts came up with a much tougher wording. Nicholas Shaxson, a journalist and investigator who is a high-profile critic of much current corporate practice, accused Starmer of ”capitulating to big business” and “siding with the monopolists instead of the British public.”

“If his goal is to make the UK safe for American or Chinese multinationals, then who runs Britain?” Shaxson asked.

But an article in the FT quoted business secretary Jonathan Reynolds saying the PM’s plan was not a bonfire of regulation, but a recognition of the fact that we have a problem with how we regulate currently. ”The current regulatory system “is not delivering the infrastructure we need, the homes that we need, it’s not also attracting the capital that we need,” he was quoted saying.

“I think the government are putting forward a very good strategy for how to improve, working together with the private sector, now it is about execution and getting execution right.”

Anders Opedal, boss of Equinor

The list of participants at the summit was clearly impressive. But there were more headlines, especially in the US, about the absence of one of the world’s richest people, Elon Musk. Commentators questioned whether it was for political reasons. Musk has openly criticised the current UK government during and in the aftermath of the recent riots in the UK.

But technology secretary Peter Kyle dismissed those suggestions. He highlighted that Musk had been absent from similar events during the previous governments too. He left the door for reconciliation open and said: “I stand absolutely ready to engage with him, to talk about any potential global investments he’s making. I’m not aware of any at this moment in time.”

Message to regulators

There was reaction from the unions, who said the government cannot write blank cheques to corporations without securing guarantees that those corporations will in return protect UK jobs.

In its defence, the government has said the recently published UK Employment Rights Bill will address those concerns, and make sure that employees in the UK have greater job guarantees and rights than ever before.

But Starmer’s message to UK regulators was clear. “We will make sure every regulator in this country – especially our economic and competition regulators – takes growth as seriously as this room does,” he told the summit.

Devil in the detail

The summit was clearly a showpiece, a piece of political theater choreographed to send the message that the grown-ups are back in charge, and that stability and reliability were the foundation stones upon which the new government was built. But as the guests assembled for the show melted away into the late autumn night their attention would have been turning to matters of detail. And particularly what ‘ripping up regulation’ actually means?

When Starmer was elected, he spoke about the chance to “return politics to public service.” For some observers, his words at the summit seemed to be more about politics as a service to corporate interests. One of Labour’s problems so far has been an inability to join up its messaging, to explain how and where public and corporate interests overlap. This gives the government the appearance of telling everyone what they want to hear, which does little to build trust.

Much of the briefing before the summit seemed to indicate that it was the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) that was in the government’s sights, and there’s certainly a view that the CMA has been a block on investment – one obviously disputed by the CMA. But Starmer’s talk of “competition and economic regulators” means the FCA is also in focus. And there is precious little detail so far about what the government wants that regulator to do differently – something fuelling frustration both outside and inside the organization.

The coming weeks and months will, perhaps, begin to show us what being pro-innovation means in practice.