Keir Starmer's Labour - The best we can do?

Britain's latest general election marked a significant majority win for labour, one the party hasn't seen since the Blair days. I claim however, that Labours victory was not in part due to their policies, leader or viewpoints, but instead simply because they're not conservatives. The British people had been subject to devastating tory rule for years, and when the election was called, everyone knew what the outcome would be.

My analysis here claims that Labours victory is in no way a victory for the left, and is more a return to the neoliberal status quo. My position is that labour has more in common with conservatives than differences, a position I believe solidified by their reluctance to seriously engage in left wing ideals. My position then focuses on these claims:

Labour are a conservative Lite party, who push neoliberal economics:

Under Starmer’s leadership so far, there has been little noticeable shift in British economic policy. The prevailing ideology remains unchanged: the government offers superficial social reforms—such as minor expansions of rights here and there—but avoids challenging the capitalist system itself. Why is this the case? Why does the party shy away from criticising a system that has inflicted such unprecedented chaos?

To provide some historical perspective, the Labour Party was originally founded with deep ties to trade unions and socialist societies, and its early constitution explicitly committed to the common ownership of the means of production. This was a direct challenge to the status quo of the time, when industrialisation and private capital were booming. Even post-war Labour, which established the NHS and nationalised key industries, remained committed to this vision of systemic change. I’m simplifying things for brevity, but the core point is that Labour once presented a clear opposition to capitalism.

Then came Tony Blair. His impact on British politics is so profound that an entire blog could be devoted to it, but for now, suffice it to say that Blair introduced the so-called "Third Way." The party distanced itself from its socialist roots and embraced a more pragmatic approach within the capitalist framework. Blair’s Labour championed market-driven solutions, a less interventionist state, and a focus on managing capitalism rather than challenging it. This is the position we find ourselves in today.

While it’s true that Labour has never fully adhered to traditional socialist principles, there was once a much clearer distinction between Labour and the Conservatives. Today, however, this divide has significantly blurred. For the British people, this results in an illusion of choice: on one hand, the Conservatives, who worsen your life; on the other, Labour, who also worsen your life but with a sense of regret. Under Starmer’s leadership so far, there has been little noticeable shift in British economic policy. The prevailing ideology remains unchanged: the government offers superficial social reforms—such as minor expansions of rights here and there—but avoids challenging the capitalist system itself. Why is this the case? Why does the party shy away from criticising a system that has inflicted such unprecedented chaos?

To provide some historical perspective, the Labour Party was originally founded with deep ties to trade unions and socialist societies, and its early constitution explicitly committed to the common ownership of the means of production. This was a direct challenge to the status quo of the time, when industrialisation and private capital were booming. Even post-war Labour, which established the NHS and nationalised key industries, remained committed to this vision of systemic change. I’m simplifying things for brevity, but the core point is that Labour once presented a clear opposition to capitalism.

Then came Tony Blair. His impact on British politics is so profound that an entire blog could be devoted to it, but for now, suffice it to say that Blair introduced the so-called "Third Way." The party distanced itself from its socialist roots and embraced a more pragmatic approach within the capitalist framework. Blair’s Labour championed market-driven solutions, a less interventionist state, and a focus on managing capitalism rather than challenging it. This is the position we find ourselves in today.

While it’s true that Labour has never fully adhered to traditional socialist principles, there was once a much clearer distinction between Labour and the Conservatives. Today, however, this divide has significantly blurred. For the British people, this results in an illusion of choice: on one hand, the Conservatives, who worsen your life; on the other, Labour, who also worsen your life but with a sense of regret.

In his Guardian article, Modern British history Professor David Edgerton outlines how Labour is now telling Britain it is a conservative party. Edgerton argues that British politics is now dominated by a consensus, he dubbed "Starnakism," where the Labour party under Keir Starmer has essentially embraced Tory ideology. Labour no longer challenges the core tenets of capitalism and small-government conservatism, focusing instead on criticising the Tories' incompetence rather than their policies.

This represents a significant departure from Labour's historical position as a social democratic party that championed state intervention, wealth redistribution, and social welfare. Starmer's Labour, Edgerton argues, accepts the Tory narrative on most issues and offers only minor policy tweaks.

This embrace of conservative dogma, reminiscent of New Labour under Tony Blair, could lead to several outcomes:

Labour fails to deliver meaningful change and is replaced by a more right-wing party: This is a real possibility given the rise of hard-right factions within the Conservative party and the potential for a realignment with figures like Nigel Farage.

Labour successfully marginalises the Tories and becomes the new conservative party: This would be preferable to a Sunak-led government, but it would solidify the existing conservative consensus.

New political forces emerge to challenge the status quo: This scenario offers the potential for a break from the stagnant political landscape, with new parties offering alternative visions for the future.

Which outcome we get, is something yet to be determined.

Labour are detached from the working people

Labour by its definition is to work or produce something directly. When we think of labourers in Britian our minds often travel to builders, bricklayers, factory workers etc. And you'd be right, this is (as we noted historically in the previous chapter) what the party originally stood for. Why then have they become so disconnected from the modern working class? I think it comes down to a few factors:

Under Keir Starmer’s leadership, the Labour Party has yet to present a vision for transforming the economy or addressing the systemic issues facing the working class. Starmer’s leadership has focused on issues like improving workers' rights in a piecemeal fashion—such as advocating for better protections for gig economy workers—but has largely shied away from tackling the underlying problems of capitalism, such as the growing wealth inequality, wage stagnation, and the erosion of public services.

Labour’s failure to take a clear stance on issues like the nationalisation of key industries or fairer wealth distribution further alienates working-class communities. For instance, while Starmer has claimed to support a green industrial revolution, his policies lack the boldness needed to address the growing divide between the rich and the poor. Labour’s reluctance to propose a real shift in economic policy—such as taxing the wealthiest or breaking up monopolies—keeps it aligned with the very system that perpetuates the working class's struggles.

Labour’s Economic Inaction: An Illusion of Choice

The Labour Party's apparent indifference to addressing the economic realities faced by working-class people has created an illusion of choice. The Conservative Party, with its neoliberal agenda, offers cuts to welfare and privatisation of public services, while Labour offers only modest social reforms without confronting the root causes of inequality.

The working class has felt this most acutely in regions that have long been Labour strongholds but have now shifted to the Tories. Take, for example, the "Red Wall" constituencies in northern England, which have traditionally been Labour strongholds but were swept by the Conservatives in the 2019 General Election. Many of these voters were drawn to the Tories because of Labour’s failure to adequately address their economic needs, particularly in terms of job creation and investment in local industries.

Starmer’s Labour has struggled to reconnect with these voters, often coming across as out of touch with the challenges they face. Whether it's the ongoing housing crisis, the stagnation of wages, or the decline of local industries, Labour’s rhetoric on social justice rings hollow when it fails to challenge the economic structures that create and sustain inequality.

A Failure to Champion Real Change

Ultimately, the Labour Party’s failure to embrace a bold vision of systemic change reflects its detachment from the working class. It’s not enough to simply offer modest policy tweaks or to pander to cultural issues without addressing the fundamental issues of wealth and power in society. Without a commitment to tackling the structures of capitalism that perpetuate inequality, Labour risks becoming just another party that governs for the elite, with only lip service paid to the concerns of the working class.

In contrast, movements on the left, such as the rise of the Green Party and growing support for socialist policies among younger voters, show that there is a hunger for real change. These movements understand that meaningful economic reform requires challenging capitalism, not accommodating it. Until Labour shifts its focus back to its roots and offers a substantive critique of the economic system, it will remain out of touch with the working-class communities it was meant to represent.