In July of last year, Keir Starmer and the Labour party galloped to a sizable landslide victory in the UK general election, securing the biggest majority government in 25 years. This put an end to 14 years of Conservative rule which had left many voters yearning for something new. This sentiment was reflected in Labour’s simple, one-word campaign slogan: Change.
I was one such voter. I began to gain political consciousness when I was 11 years old, around the time the previous Labour government was leaving office in 2010. Over the proceeding 14 years I witnessed the fallout of austerity, the disastrous Brexit referendum, and the mismanagement of the Covid pandemic. All failings inflicted on the UK by successive Conservative governments. By the time of the 2024 general election, I too was longing for change.
Any hopes I had of a dramatic swing towards a more social-democratic style of government under Labour were, at first, cautious. During the election campaign, Labour had adopted the strategy of shadowing many Conservative policies, including the pledge not to raise VAT, national insurance, or income tax. The idea presumably being that if there was less breathing room between the two parties on policy it would leave Labour less vulnerable to Conservative attacks and that the widespread voter dissatisfaction with the Tories would do the rest.
In particular, there was a noticeable effort to portray Labour as being financially responsible; a reputation Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was seeking to reclaim for the Tories in the aftermath of his predecessor Liz Truss’ calamitous mini-budget.
The product of this strategy was a manifesto which contained, alongside the promise not to raise any of the three major taxes, pledges to cap corporation tax, secure Britain’s borders, and strictly control government spending––hardly the stuff of radical reform.
But as Keir Starmer walked up Downing Street on the morning of July the 5th, I held out hope that electoral strategy and governance would prove to be two different things. That, once in office, the Labour government would get on with the business of major, progressive change.
Instead, one of the first major policy announcements after the election was the removal of winter fuel allowance for all but the very poorest pensioners. This followed the suspension of seven Labour MPs who had voted for the SNP’s motion to scrap a cap on benefits for people with two children or more. This seemed more reminiscent of Tory austerity than a Labour renaissance.
Nonetheless there was, during the first weeks, evidence that progressive change might be coming down the line; the government went to great pains to explain that the country’s finances and public services were in a much worse state than had been previously thought. It appeared the ground was being laid for a reversal of the restrictive economic pledges made during the election; a loosening of the fiscal rules to allow more borrowing or a major progressive tax increase to fund ambitious public sector investment, perhaps?
This turned out to be partially true. The autumn budget did include a significant increase in the tax intake alongside a redefinition of debt which would allow for extra borrowing without actually loosening the fiscal rules. This would, Chancellor Rachel Reeves explained, free up extra funding for the NHS and local councils among other things. Was this a promising sign of things to come?
The spring statement in 2025 seemed to suggest otherwise. The government announced changes to disability welfare which amounted, in effect, to a cut, as well as significant cuts to the international aid budget. Measures such as these have led much of the public to start believing that Labour is taking Britain back to austerity.
There have been a few things which will satisfy Labour’s traditional base such as legislation to take the rail companies into public ownership or to initiate the setting up of the publicly owned energy company Great British Energy. But until recently Keir Starmer’s Labour party appeared to be partly recycling its 2024 election strategy as its strategy for government––shadow the opposition.
Unlike during the election however, recent opinion polls suggest the real opposition to the Labour party, amongst the electorate anyway, is now the right-wing populist Reform party. Despite only having five elected MPs (although one has since been suspended from the party), Reform has replaced the Conservatives as the second-largest party in some polls. Knowing that Reform came a close second in many Labour heartland constituencies, the Labour party seems to have concluded that it needs to win back some Reform supporters in order to achieve a second term.
A sensible approach based on this conclusion might indeed include moving closer to Reform’s positions on some issues. Consequently, some Labour policies, such as cutting international aid and implementing stricter immigration rules, can be found within the pages of the remarkably thin 2024 Reform party manifesto; policies which have led the public to conclude that Labour is trying to appeal to Reform voters more than its own base.
However, the strategy which worked so well for the general election has been proving to be less effective now that Labour is in government. Recent local elections saw Reform take control of 10 local councils and two mayoralties with Labour losing its only council up for election and one mayoralty. Labour also lost a closely fought by-election to Reform who overturned a huge Labour majority of 14,696.
Sensational local election results do not, it must be said, always translate into sensational general election results. But this was certainly a shot across the Labour bow and it caused many party members to wonder how best to react.
MPs, including some cabinet ministers, reported that the means-testing of winter fuel payments and the reforms to disability benefits were brought up time and again on the doorstep as reasons for not voting Labour in the run up to the local elections, and some suggested that the government change course. This suggestion was promptly rejected by Downing Street, however.
For weeks, the government seemed intent on staying the course but has recently announced that at least a partial U-turn is coming. Changes made at the next financial statement will ensure more pensioners qualify for the winter fuel allowance. But will this be enough to win back voters who think Labour has sacrificed fundamental party values?
With such a large majority in parliament Starmer has the political capital to draw on the reforming spirit of the post-war Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee and call for a more ambitious, far-reaching plan of national renewal. Instead, the government is pursuing a more prudent path, on both economic and social issues. It risks dividing its attention, pandering to different bases and pleasing none as it promises tolerance and compassion whilst drawing comparisons with Enoch Powell. Lines from a recent speech held by Starmer on immigration policy have been pointed out as being reminiscent of the Conservative MP’s infamous anti-immigrant Rivers of Blood speech made in 1968.
The dire consequences of giving up fundamental party values are illustrated by the near extinction of the Liberal Democrats after their stint in coalition with the Conservatives. If Labour wants to avoid a similar fate, it must stop courting the Right and deliver the progressive policies people expect from them.
The electoral risks of pandering to the Right and further disillusioning swathes of the electorate are clear. But beyond the prospect of punishment at the ballot box, Labour also risks losing its identity. Even if the 2024 strategy of right-wing appeasement would work at the next general election, it would be nothing to celebrate. A second term in office is all well and good, but if it is achieved at the expense of progressive policies, then it will have been for nothing.
