Keir Starmer’s Government: A year in review

When Keir Starmer was elected as Prime Minister last year, not many could have predicted just how challenging his first year in office would be. Some of this difficulty was created by outside events, whether it was war in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, Donald Trump deciding to take a sledgehammer to the world economy with tariffs, or the persistently mentioned “22 billion pound black hole” in government finances that Labour has inherited.

However, many of Starmer’s difficulties have also been of his own making and due to his unclear, meandering approach to economic and political governance, which fails to keep up with the more extreme politics that many are crying out for to change the fundamental issues with our nation and how it has been run.

Naturally, we must start by examining the economy because the success or failure of a leader usually comes down to how much money people feel they have in their pockets. This is a view that is clearly held by Labour itself, as arguably their biggest priority in their Plan For Change was to stimulate growth. The economy in this first year has been a story of stagnation, with GDP per capita roughly 0.5% higher in April than it was a year ago, which isn’t anything for people to get ecstatic about.

It is beyond me why Labour have decided to essentially continue with austerity when they were voted in to change course from it

Labour have put through some positive reforms, such as the much-needed construction of affordable housing and an increase of the minimum wage. However, the overall economic policy of this government has been lacking and Starmer’s trust in Rachel Reeves as Chancellor has not paid off. Their economic philosophy centres around fiscal rules which involve reducing the government deficit and funding to balance with day-to-day spending and revenues. In theory, this seems like a pragmatic method of governance, but in practice, it does not work in the slightest, because it involves Reeves and Starmer tying their own hands, thus stopping them from delivering any kind of meaningful change.

Reeves has not raised income taxes in the last year, even on the wealthiest in society, out of fear of reaction from the financial markets, meaning that cuts have been deemed necessary across the board. The problem is that cuts were the key economic philosophy that the Conservatives tried for 14 years through austerity, and it did not work. When you constantly cut public services and welfare, you only serve to make people poorer and less likely to spend, which in turn means that the economy cannot grow at the pace you want it to. It is beyond me why Labour have decided to essentially continue with austerity when they were voted in to change course from it.

The government is trying to pragmatically invest in public services like the NHS and enact rail nationalisation, which should create jobs and improve people’s lives. However, continuing austerity through an oxymoronic ‘save and spend’ approach will not stimulate the necessary growth or change promised, as not enough money is being invested, particularly into the poorest in society, who were going to see their benefits cut by the government until a last-minute U-turn.

Many are drifting towards the politics of Reform because they provide a radical vision of what we can do to fix the issue, and Starmer’s pragmatic, incremental governance is unable to compete

In terms of an overall ideological vision for the nation, Starmer has also failed. This can easily be proven by the fact that Reform, a party with four MPs, is ahead of him in the polls, with another 10% of support, according to More in Common, going to Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana’s new party, which doesn’t yet exist.

Disillusionment with traditional politics can be demonstrated by a recent poll where half of Brits said they weren’t sure if the cost-of-living crisis will ever end. Many are drifting towards the politics of Reform because they provide a radical vision of what we can do to fix the issue, and Starmer’s pragmatic, incremental governance is unable to compete.

Because of this, Starmer decided to try and copy Reform’s tough stance on immigration in his White Paper, which supposedly strengthens borders and reduces the number of immigrant workers. What he fails to understand is that right-wing Reform voters, who believe in this rhetoric, are still never going to vote for Labour. Instead of adding fuel to Farage’s claims that immigrants are ruining our nation, Starmer should produce his own opposite argument, perhaps one discussing inequality and how taxing wealth to fund public services could actually solve the deep-rooted problems we face.

the genocide by Israel in Gaza has cast a dark shadow over an otherwise good foreign strategy, as Starmer took far too long to condemn Israel for their “horrific” killing of Palestinian civilians, all while his government continues to sell arms to Israel

On the international stage, Starmer has certainly had some success. The UK was able to escape some of Trump’s tariffs, such as those on steel, thanks to Starmer’s relationship with him. Starmer has also succeeded in bringing us closer to the EU in defence and trade through a UK-EU deal.

However, the genocide by Israel in Gaza has cast a dark shadow over an otherwise good foreign strategy, as Starmer took far too long to condemn Israel for their “horrific” killing of Palestinian civilians, all while his government continues to sell arms to Israel, despite protests from the public.

This technocratic, centrist, and supposedly pragmatic government does not have enough of a voice to take a real stand against what is happening in Gaza. In fact, it doesn’t truly have enough of a voice in general. What Starmer needs is to create a clear vision for the nation, both in domestic and foreign policy, with an emphasis on spending and not cutting, contrasting himself with Reform, rather than trying to copy them. However, it remains to be seen if this is something he is capable of.