When Labour activists, MPs and unions meet at its “national policy forum” in Nottingham this month, it will be a novelty to hear what the party is for. The past six weeks have seen the leadership distance itself from key policies. It has already ruled out universal childcare for young children and scaled back plans to borrow £28bn a year to invest in green jobs and industry. Keir Starmer has touted dropping a promise to reinstate the Department for International Development. He still refuses to commit to axing the two-child benefit limit, or to supporting the provision of free school meals for all primary school children. The effect is that he appears to spend more time ruling out all the things that Labour won’t do if it wins power than selling the things it will.
This isn’t an accident – it’s entirely deliberate. Labour insiders have suggested the party is actively looking to “make sacrifices” in areas it had previously flagged as important in order to show its “fiscal responsibility”. As strategies go, it is akin to a divorced man burning all his possessions to prove to his ex he doesn’t really want them.
With inflation still high and the economy struggling, Labour’s leaders clearly feel obliged, in the run-up to the election, to cut back any policy pledges that the Conservatives could label as “unaffordable”. The result is that in doing so they are ruling out anything that is desirable. Britain faces some of its greatest crises since the second world war and Labour is making the case for cautious reserve. Shadow cabinet figures use the language of “hard choices” and “what’s possible during these circumstances”, delivered in dead-eyed political jargon. It is opposition by expectation management. Or as Wes Streeting put it in the Observer, “The only thing worse than no hope is false hope.” Any hope at all would be a start.
Watching Starmer nowadays, it is almost as if there is a concerted effort to be uninspiring. Hope is naive, resignation a sign of maturity. Just look at his response last week to a protester who asked: “Which side are the Labour party on?” “We are on the side of economic growth,” Starmer replied, with a straight face. At other times, there appears a bullish attempt to show he doesn’t care about the issues his critics think he would. “I hate tree-huggers,” Starmer reportedly told staff recently during an energy policy briefing.
It is not that Starmer’s calculations aren’t understandable. The party is faced with the frustration of watching the Tories wipe out tens of billions from the economy and focus groups still asking if Labour can be trusted with their money. There is a reason Starmer and his allies have been courting Rupert Murdoch and other rightwing powerbrokers this summer.
British politics is essentially run by a small set of unspoken rules: cuts are better than investment, there is a limited amount of money to go round, and only certain valid ways of raising it. The notion of “affordability” is less genuine economic thinking and more conservative ideology: a device to force mainstream leftwing parties to stick within the parameters of the status quo or be deemed “irresponsible” by the rightwing press. It is essentially the emperor’s new clothes of governing, where cancer patients are dying on NHS waiting lists but we must all pretend “limited investment” is the grownup solution.
Starmer did not choose the fiscal rules he inherited – but he can choose whether or not to play by them. Instead of wincing over scrapping the two-child limit, for example, he could point out that such a move is not only fair – it’s good economics. Child poverty is estimated to cost the UK £39bn a year and benefit cuts are a key cause.
Reports that Labour policy chiefs are considering pushing for ending benefit sanctions and building social housing are a good start. Similarly, Labour could pitch progressive ways to raise funds. Starmer might try increasing income tax for the top 5% of earners (it was, after all, one of his leadership pledges). Labour has dipped a toe in here, pledging to scrap non-dom status and private school tax breaks, but could safely push it to a larger scale. Voters enduring a cost of living crisis are primed for policies that see the wealthiest take their fair share of the burden.
You can practically hear the response from the leader of the opposition’s office now: Labour hasn’t laid out its policies yet, so it’s unfair to judge the party for them. But it is disingenuous to suggest this is how a narrative works. Starmer’s Labour are not simply defined by what it will stand up for but what it won’t. If the Labour party isn’t comfortable coming out for decent child benefits, universal social care or tackling climate change, it hardly needs a manifesto to show voters what its values are. It has made that quite clear already. After 13 years of Tory rule, the public have every right to expect the opposition to be offering meaningful change. As it stands, “Britain: pretty much like now but slightly better” is the election slogan they will get.
Frances Ryan is a Guardian columnist
