“Starmer’s Britain: Things will get better (eventually)”

As Labour moved closer to winning back Number 10, Starmer appeared more focused on managing expectations than inspiring voters with bold promises. Over the years leading up to the election, as their chances of victory steadily increased, the party moderated many of its positions, dropping several commitments it had previously made. Some will remember that Starmer was elected as Labour leader in 2020 on a platform that included public ownership, scrapping tuition fees, progressive taxation, and defending migrants’ rights. Even more recent commitments, such as Labour’s 2021 pledge to invest £28 billion annually into green energy if elected, were quietly abandoned as the election neared.

Now in government, Labour has shifted its focus to pre-emptively apologising for the “tough choices” they say the country must endure due to years of Tory mismanagement. Starmer has styled himself as the leader to deliver sensible solutions to bring Britain back on track. However, these solutions are far from radical – they represent technocratic tweaks to the existing system, offering small improvements and more continuity than change.

That being said, Starmer’s initial moves as Prime Minister have been some of his most ambitious. They are aimed at distinguishing his leadership from his Conservative predecessors and signalling the government’s priorities. Among these first actions were the reversal of the ban on onshore wind farms and the announcement of a ban on all new oil and gas projects, both of which were unveiled within a week of Starmer’s premiership. These initiatives marked a step in the right direction on environmental issues, an area where bold action is urgently needed. They suggest that environmental policy may be the government’s most promising area for progress, at least judging by these early actions.

Despite Starmer’s emphasis on financial responsibility, if GB Energy fails, the burden may fall on taxpayers

Adding to these steps, Rachel Reeves declared that Labour would establish a National Wealth Fund aimed at “kickstarting a decade of national renewal” to “mobilise private sector capital into investments across the UK.” The success of this fund, however, depends on private investment, which will, according to the Treasury, account for three-quarters of total investment. This rests the realisation of the government’s aims on its ability to attract investors, which is susceptible to fluctuations in the markets. While the proposal signals a shift towards greener policies, it falls short of the kind of bold, transformative action needed to truly address the climate emergency. A more secure approach would have involved a larger direct injection of government funding to ensure the reliability of the programme.

Despite its strengths, Labour’s approach to environmental policy fits within its broader policy framework, based on economic growth. Their vision integrates the rich and super-rich into the green transition, a stark contrast to the Green New Deal proposed under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, which aimed to radically transform the economy with a focus on equality and a just transition for workers. While Starmer’s plans represent progress compared to previous British governments, one could argue that this says more about the failures of those governments than the boldness of his own.

Labour’s reliance on private investment to drive green policy is also evident in the creation of Great British Energy (GB Energy), a government-backed company aimed at cutting energy bills and accelerating decarbonisation. GB Energy fits the same pragmatic mould as Labour’s other reforms – not public ownership of energy, as Starmer promised in 2020, but a public-private partnership intended to attract investment for clean energy projects. While the government is committing an initial £8.3 billion, the success of the initiative hinges on private capital being mobilised. This makes the project more of a tweak to the current system than a foundational (and desperately needed) overhaul of Britain’s broken energy grid. Additionally, despite Starmer’s emphasis on financial responsibility, if GB Energy fails, the burden may fall on taxpayers, potentially costing more in the long run than full nationalisation would have.

The reluctance to invest in the NHS raises concerns that Labour’s reforms may not go far enough

Fiscal restraint seems to be an obsession for the new government, even in areas where it contradicts Labour’s previous stances. This is especially evident in the party’s support for maintaining the two-child benefit cap, introduced by the Conservatives in 2017 – and strongly opposed by the Labour Party and Starmer himself. Even more alarming is the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners. Labour, a party traditionally associated with protecting the social safety net, is now adopting positions that weaken it. The real-world impact of cutting the winter fuel allowance, which will now only reach 1.5 million pensioners instead of 11.4 million, could be bleak. The abandonment of universality and the harsh means-testing measures could result in many vulnerable people missing out on essential support. With 5,000 deaths last year attributed to cold homes, according to the House of Commons Energy Committee, Labour’s cost-cutting measures could cost lives.

It should come as no surprise, then, that cuts could extend to other areas as well – including the National Health Service. Starmer and his Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, have spoken extensively about the need to reform the NHS, but the details remain ambiguous. Starmer has promised the “biggest reimagining of our NHS” since its formation, with a comprehensive plan to be revealed in the spring. However, Streeting recently refused to rule out cuts to the NHS budget, saying the government is “taking a tough look right across the public finances.” He has also repeatedly expressed interest in involving the private sector in the NHS, raising concerns that Labour may be leaning towards partial privatisation.

While it’s clear the NHS needs reform, it also requires more funding after a decade of austerity-driven underfunding. The recent Darzi report on the state of the NHS highlighted its critical condition, and many of Labour’s proposed reforms, such as the digitisation of medical records, are welcome. However, the reluctance to invest in the NHS raises concerns that Labour’s reforms may not go far enough, once again reflecting the party’s pattern of moderation.

Labour is more susceptible to rightward shifts than leftward ones, even as it loses seats to pro-Palestinian independents

In terms of foreign policy, there has been little change under Labour. The government’s response to ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, especially regarding Israel’s assaults on Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon, has been timid. In a recent UN hearing, the UK was among 43 nations that abstained from a resolution demanding an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories – a resolution supported by 124 countries, including France, Spain, and Finland. Although Foreign Secretary David Lammy announced that Labour would suspend some arms exports to Israel, the suspension affects only about 8% of the total arms sales to the country and excluded the export of parts used to manufacture F-35 fighter jets that continue to be used to bomb Gaza.

Starmer’s foreign policy decisions, including his recent meeting with Italy’s far-right Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, have also raised eyebrows. Starmer pledged £4 million to support Italy’s crackdown on illegal immigration, and Meloni remarked on Starmer’s interest in Italy’s plan to process asylum claims in Albania. This friendliness with hard-right leaders, coupled with Labour’s repositioning on immigration, stands in stark contrast to Starmer’s 2020 campaign pledge to defend migrants’ rights.

Labour’s repositioning on immigration is likely a response to the rise of Reform UK, a far-right party that has successfully shifted the national discourse. For many progressive Labour supporters, this feels like a betrayal of Labour’s ideals. The party’s failure to meaningfully challenge right-wing immigration rhetoric – or their lukewarm response to the Palestinian conflict – demonstrates that Labour is more susceptible to rightward shifts than leftward ones, even as it loses seats to pro-Palestinian independents.

Labour has at least demonstrated a willingness to address the ongoing crisis in terms of housing, though its plans remain rooted in the neoliberal framework that caused the crisis in the first place. The Renters’ Rights Bill, which ends no-fault evictions, is a positive move that begins to reverse the Conservatives’ erosion of tenants’ rights. Starmer’s ambitious plan to build 1.5 million new homes over the current Parliament could also help alleviate the housing crisis. However, it is unclear whether Labour is prepared to tackle the deeper issues, such as the decline in social housing, which began under Margaret Thatcher’s right-to-buy scheme in the 1980s.

To convince the public that things will improve, Starmer must offer more than marginal adjustments

Labour has undoubtedly inherited a country in disrepair, with a mounting national debt and public services devastated by a decade of austerity. In the Prime Minister’s own words, “things are worse than we could ever have imagined”. But after a decade in which public services have been decimated by austerity, the last thing they need is more cuts. Instead, Labour should be looking to invest in them, as no large-scale substantial reforms can be carried out without equally substantial funding.

There are alternative ways to ensure fiscal responsibility without hurting the most vulnerable. Labour could increase taxes on the wealthy by adjusting income tax brackets and raising taxes on capital gains, corporations, and inheritances. These measures would ensure that the economic burden of recovery is shared more fairly and would help build public trust in the Government.

In reality, not much is new or novel about Starmer’s “tough decisions” talk. In the aftermath of his election, David Cameron said “The service our country needs right now is to face up to our really big challenges, to confront our problems, to take difficult decisions […] so that together we can reach better times ahead.” Several years of austerity followed, and now that Labour is back in power, they promise to fix the mess that the Conservatives made – beginning with Cameron – with more austerity.

Starmer’s brand of cautious, technocratic politics, with its moderate solutions and assurances of inevitable hardship, risks further alienating citizens already disillusioned with electoral politics. To convince the public that things will improve, Starmer must offer more than marginal adjustments. Britain’s crises demand bold, progressive action – but thus far, Starmer’s government appears reluctant to deliver.