A New Mission: Where is the Country Going Under Keir Starmer?

Written by Oliver Jones-Lyons, undergraduate student at Christ Church, Oxford, reading Philosophy, Psychology and Linguistics.

With parliament now in its summer recess, just over a month into the new Labour government of Sir Keir Starmer, the country doesn’t quite feel the same way it did during the 14 years of Conservative government that ended on the 5th of July. We’ve seen what could, if it continues, amount to an entirely new style of governance. We’ve seen a new economic approach as well as new economic challenges emerging and finally we’ve seen unanticipated domestic challenges that have created new rifts that will shape the country for the years to come. Now seems to be a good time to sit down and consider: where is the country going under Keir Starmer?

When the new prime minister gave his address from Number 10 Downing Street after accepting His Majesty The King’s invitation to form a government, he ended his speech with the following words: “our work is urgent.. and we begin it today”. Whatever your opinion of the Labour Party or Keir Starmer himself, this promise was certainly kept. His government began with the swift announcement of his cabinet and ministers. A number of appointments piqued the interest of politicos across the country: Patrick Vallance as Science Minister, Richard Hermer as Attorney General (a major snub to Emily Thornberry, a Labour grandee and visible public figure) and James Timpson as a prisons minister. All of these appointments seemed incredibly technocratic and show a level of intent from the prime minister that again seems to be admirable. On the verge of a prison crisis, a key advocate for prisons reform from outside of politics is appointed as minister. A crisis of international law is emerging in Israel-Palestine and a major change in governance style seems apparent so a high powered KC outspoken on Gaza is appointed Attorney General. As well as the UK’s former chief science adviser during the COVID19 pandemic being embraced at a ministerial level. These all again signalled a level of intent.

Shortly after these rather eye-catching ministerial announcements in what is usually an otherwise boring affair, we had a slew of announcements from various government departments. Most eye-catching was a series of announcements from the Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Ed Miliband,  former party leader, now Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. These announcements amounted to a signal for some of the biggest reforms to planning and infrastructure seen in a long time. Reeves announced that the number one priority of this government was growth and that she would seek reforms to the planning system to unblock infrastructure projects being held up by bureaucratic red tape. Showing that this government took this mission seriously across departments, Ed Miliband shortly followed up with a series of initiatives by getting rid of an implied ban on new onshore wind power and authorising the construction of three giant solar power plants, both initiatives popular with environmental activists. 

However the government seemed to hit a snag when it came to housing. The UK has a housing crisis, plain and simple. Prices are exceeding unaffordable rates, especially in urban areas, and many prospective first-time buyers are priced out of the market entirely. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner came to parliament with a plan to fix this, reviving the proposal from the last government of mandatory housing targets for local authorities, although making some tweaks. Specifically, she removed the 35% uplift for urban areas. Mandatory housing targets are an interesting policy area: when it comes to housing in the UK, almost every voter will tell you in a poll that they want more. However, there is also strong evidence from local politics that they will also object to any sort of policy that forces more houses, and vote in representatives more likely to object to housing and infrastructure. So by making this tweak, Rayner seemed to make the policy more palatable, especially to largely Labour voting urban areas. However, many critics have pointed out that this tweak largely defeats the point of mandatory housing targets, as more houses will be built in areas where housing is largely affordable such as the North East of England, but less houses will be built in areas where prices are skyrocketing like Greater London. It seemed entirely out of step with the rest of the government, especially on the environment, where government powers (such as call ins where the government can overturn a local authority objection to building) are being used to fight stakeholder democracy in the interests of growth. The Labour mission of growth seems to have found its first battle in the model of stakeholder democracy that has been baked into British politics.

This mission continued to face challenges however. Returning to the treasury, we saw our first parliamentary battle for Keir Starmer as the SNP moved an amendment calling for an end to the two child benefit cap, backed by the Liberal Democrats and 7 rebel Labour MPs. Whilst the government has a huge majority, these challenges to the authority of the party were met head strong by the whips office with all 7 of these MPs having the Labour whip temporarily suspended including from former leadership contender Rebecca Long-Bailey and close ally of Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell. Child poverty remains perhaps one of the biggest social justice issues facing Great Britain, and Keir promised action through a child poverty task force that would consider ending the benefits cap, but it’s clear that forces on the left of the party and of parliament will be uncomfortable with this issue remaining unresolved and such force being used to crack down on dissidents.

With the rejection of a popular benefits change, supported by many Labour MPs and a big fighting ground between left wing parties in the general election, we saw that this government was taking the attitude that the public finances are not in good shape. This was confirmed explicitly by the Chancellor when she came to the despatch box mere days later to announce that there was an unexpected £22 billion black hole in the public finances, which she blamed on the Conservatives mismanagement of the economy (although it is worth noting that experts, polls and the party itself have expressed a large degree of scepticism about this representation). Reeves announced some immediate cuts to public spending. Most controversially, taking away the winter fuel payment from just under 10 million pensioners through means testing which was criticised by charities, the opposition and was somewhat unexpected from a more left wing government. Other cuts included the cancellation of social care reforms and capital programs and the pause of the New Hospitals Programme. On the other hand, we saw huge giveaways of public money to those employed by the state. Rachel Reeves announced 9 billion pounds in pay rises for civil servants and other public employees such as those working for the NHS, this came in addition to a pay deal with junior doctors ending two years of industrial action giving a nearly 8% pay rise to the average junior doctor. Concern has been raised by the opposition that whilst pensioners, some of the most vulnerable financially in society, are facing huge cuts to important welfare payments, trade union members are receiving billions. This combined with new industrial action expected from GPs and a return to industrial action on the railways, many are struggling to see how the economic mission of growth can contend with the competing demands of social justice for pensioners and children as well as fairness for public sector workers.

Whilst the government’s focus and narrative has clearly been around the economy, domestic policy cannot be ignored. Health Secretary Wes Streeting tried to quietly slip through a continuation of the puberty blockers ban implemented by the Conservative government arguing that more research was required. Whilst seen by LGBT+ activists as a betrayal of the left wing values the government was voted in on, the media focus on the economy largely seemed to work for the government and allowed domestic policy, previously a hugely divisive area of national discussion, to somewhat remain under the radar. Yet, on the 29th of July, a mass stabbing attack occured at a dance studio in Southport. Due to a mixture of misinformation and pre-existing racial tensions, public disorder erupted around the country ranging from otherwise peaceful far right protests citing what they referred to as “legitimate concerns” to outright disorder and looting. The prime minister, a former director of public prosecutions with experience from the 2011 London Riots, did not shy away from cracking down on the protests and the drumming up of racial hatred online with, as of writing, over 1000 people being arrested and over 500 of those being charged with criminal offences. Whilst the crackdown was seen by the vast majority of the country as the correct response to what was branded as thuggery by many MPs on all sides of parliament, tensions in communities across the UK have been raised by this event with YouGov polling showing that 7% support the riots and 34% more support the broader protests. The country has arguably never been more divided.

So where is the country going under Keir Starmer; what can we expect from the first year and first (perhaps of many?) parliament of Labour government in 14 years? We can expect competing forces of stakeholder democracy and pro-growth legislation to clash resulting in era-defining debates over what the role of local voices are in their own communities against the backdrop of national infrastructure crises. We can expect more difficult choices in the public finances as fiscal responsibility, a pro-growth agenda, social justice and a trade union movement stronger than ever all compete for their share of a budget with a black hole. And we can expect difficult conversations about immigration and other culture war issues as community tensions across the country reach fever pitch. For those who thought Keir Starmer’s government might represent an age where things just get better, it seems they were sadly mistaken.