Share this post:
“A landslide win on the fewest votes ever? What went wrong for Labour — and can it ever fix the mess?”
In 2024, the UK Labour Party claimed government with a historic paradox: winning power with the lowest vote ever recorded for a victorious party in British history. This ‘landslide’ was more a whisper than a roar.
Fast forward a year, and any optimism that greeted Sir Keir Starmer’s rise has evaporated altogether, replaced by disillusionment and a deep crisis of confidence within Labour’s ranks and across the country.
What happened? And more importantly, what’s next?
The background: a pyrrhic victory
Labour’s ascent in 2024 was a shock, but not in the way the party hoped.
Starmer inherited a country bruised by nearly 15 years of Conservative dominance and the bitter divisions left behind by Brexit. His carefully-cultivated image as a centrist, pragmatic leader was meant to appeal beyond Labour’s traditional base.
But the election results told a different story: Labour scraped through with a slender majority, aided by fractured opposition and an exhausted Conservative party. Only 20 per cent of the electorate bothered to support Labour, the weakest democratic foundation for a winning party in living memory.
The policy quagmire: mistakes with major consequences
Almost immediately, Labour stumbled. Its initial policy platform—intended to bridge the divides—came off as a muddled compromise, lacking boldness or clarity. Key missteps included:
-
Energy policy confusion: Initially flirting with re-nationalisation, Labour retreated under corporate and media pressure, settling for incremental reforms in an energy market facing a cost-of-living crisis.
-
Fiscal muddling: Starmer’s government pursued a tight fiscal stance, emphasizing deficit reduction and market confidence, alienating Labour’s traditional working-class voters who felt ignored in the face of soaring inflation and stagnating wages.
-
Housing and social care: Promises to address Britain’s housing crisis were watered down, while social care reforms failed to materialize, feeding narratives of Labour as out-of-touch and indecisive.
The political stakes: why this matters more than ever
Labour’s failure is not just a party problem; it’s a national crisis. The UK faces growing economic inequality, regional disparities, and a public trust deficit in politics. The stakes for Labour are clear:
-
If Labour cannot deliver, the Conservative or far-right opposition will exploit the vacuum.
-
Labour’s lost goodwill threatens the very fabric of Britain’s post-Brexit democracy.
-
A divided Labour risks fracturing further, handing the country over to entrenched neoliberal orthodoxy or nationalist populism.
As political theorist Stuart Hall warned decades ago: without a viable left alternative, the political centre-right becomes the only viable “common sense”, deepening neoliberalism’s grip.
Economic theories in play: Keynesian dreams v fiscal orthodoxy
Labour’s initial economic approach leaned heavily on neoliberal and monetarist orthodoxies:
-
Emphasizing fiscal rules and deficit reduction over expansionary fiscal policy.
-
Shying away from Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) insights that advocate for greater government spending to stimulate growth and address social needs without an immediate focus on debt fears.
Critics argue this was a grave error.
By ignoring Keynesian principles—especially the idea that government should spend boldly during downturns—Labour undermined its core promise to deliver economic justice.
Financial details: the cost of caution
Labour’s cautious stance cost the public dearly:
-
Inflation-adjusted wage stagnation persisted.
-
Energy bills remained among the highest in Europe.
-
Housing affordability worsened, with property prices rising 12 per cent in 2025 alone.
-
The government’s reluctance to nationalize failing utilities like the Big Six energy companies or the privatised water firms allowed corporate profiteering to continue, costing consumers billions.
Opponents tout “market discipline,” but the public pays the price when markets fail to serve societal needs.
Historical and global context: lessons from the past and abroad
Britain has faced similar crossroads before. The post-war Labour government nationalized key industries to rebuild Britain’s economy and infrastructure — a move that secured decades of growth and social progress.
Conversely, Margaret Thatcher’s neoliberal revolution in the 1980s, which dismantled much of that, led to deep social fracture and regional decline.
Sadly, Starmer’s Labour is emulating the Thatcher model, rather than its own party’s illustrious history.
Globally, countries like Germany and the Nordic states show how public control and strategic state intervention can coexist with market economies to deliver social justice and economic stability.
Geopolitical dimension: the UK on the world stage
Labour’s faltering has global implications. The UK is still re-defining its post-Brexit identity, and needs strong governance to navigate trade tensions, climate change commitments, and the shifting power dynamics with the US, EU, and China.
An indecisive Labour government risks:
-
Weakening the UK’s negotiating hand internationally.
-
Undermining climate policy ambitions, especially in energy transition.
-
Failing to leverage public ownership models to secure strategic industries critical to national security.
Nationalisation, in particular, is often dismissed as an outdated relic, but it is a powerful tool:
-
It can reduce costs for consumers.
-
Secure long-term investments in infrastructure.
-
Align services with public interest rather than profit.
Labour’s failure to take this path in 2025 echoes the neoliberal failures of the past 40 years and alienates its core supporters.
Starmer and his cronies seem to have forgotten that public control can be efficient and innovative when properly managed—as we see in Scandinavian models.
And they are ignoring the fact that social ownership is not about stifling markets but about balancing power and ensuring that wealth generated by society serves society.
What would a real turnaround look like?
Labour must embrace:
-
Bold, transparent policy: Full public control or effective regulation of critical sectors (energy, transport, housing).
-
Progressive fiscal policy: Rejection of austerity, adoption of MMT-informed spending aimed at full employment and public investment.
-
Rebuilding of trust with grassroots and unions, reconnecting with working-class voters.
-
Clear communication: Owning bold moves unapologetically, framing them as investments in Britain’s future.
- Reform of legal frameworks: Labour must work to safeguard public interests, using voter support in the general election as its mandate.
This will not be easy. Political risks include market backlash, hostile media campaigns, and intra-party conflict. But these risks pale compared with continued drift and decline.
Labour’s moment of reckoning
Labour’s 2025 story is one of missed opportunity and caution run amok. To reclaim its purpose and Britain’s future, the party must shed centrist timidity and embrace the bold, transformative policies its voters desperately need.
The alternative is clear: continued political erosion, growing inequality, and a country adrift.
Will Labour rise to the challenge or fade into history? The country—and the left—await the answer.
Share this post:
Labour in 2025: the party that lost its way and what it means for you
Share this post:
“A landslide win on the fewest votes ever? What went wrong for Labour — and can it ever fix the mess?”
In 2024, the UK Labour Party claimed government with a historic paradox: winning power with the lowest vote ever recorded for a victorious party in British history. This ‘landslide’ was more a whisper than a roar.
Fast forward a year, and any optimism that greeted Sir Keir Starmer’s rise has evaporated altogether, replaced by disillusionment and a deep crisis of confidence within Labour’s ranks and across the country.
What happened? And more importantly, what’s next?
The background: a pyrrhic victory
Labour’s ascent in 2024 was a shock, but not in the way the party hoped.
Starmer inherited a country bruised by nearly 15 years of Conservative dominance and the bitter divisions left behind by Brexit. His carefully-cultivated image as a centrist, pragmatic leader was meant to appeal beyond Labour’s traditional base.
But the election results told a different story: Labour scraped through with a slender majority, aided by fractured opposition and an exhausted Conservative party. Only 20 per cent of the electorate bothered to support Labour, the weakest democratic foundation for a winning party in living memory.
The policy quagmire: mistakes with major consequences
Almost immediately, Labour stumbled. Its initial policy platform—intended to bridge the divides—came off as a muddled compromise, lacking boldness or clarity. Key missteps included:
Energy policy confusion: Initially flirting with re-nationalisation, Labour retreated under corporate and media pressure, settling for incremental reforms in an energy market facing a cost-of-living crisis.
Fiscal muddling: Starmer’s government pursued a tight fiscal stance, emphasizing deficit reduction and market confidence, alienating Labour’s traditional working-class voters who felt ignored in the face of soaring inflation and stagnating wages.
Housing and social care: Promises to address Britain’s housing crisis were watered down, while social care reforms failed to materialize, feeding narratives of Labour as out-of-touch and indecisive.
The political stakes: why this matters more than ever
Labour’s failure is not just a party problem; it’s a national crisis. The UK faces growing economic inequality, regional disparities, and a public trust deficit in politics. The stakes for Labour are clear:
If Labour cannot deliver, the Conservative or far-right opposition will exploit the vacuum.
Labour’s lost goodwill threatens the very fabric of Britain’s post-Brexit democracy.
A divided Labour risks fracturing further, handing the country over to entrenched neoliberal orthodoxy or nationalist populism.
As political theorist Stuart Hall warned decades ago: without a viable left alternative, the political centre-right becomes the only viable “common sense”, deepening neoliberalism’s grip.
Economic theories in play: Keynesian dreams v fiscal orthodoxy
Labour’s initial economic approach leaned heavily on neoliberal and monetarist orthodoxies:
Emphasizing fiscal rules and deficit reduction over expansionary fiscal policy.
Shying away from Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) insights that advocate for greater government spending to stimulate growth and address social needs without an immediate focus on debt fears.
Critics argue this was a grave error.
By ignoring Keynesian principles—especially the idea that government should spend boldly during downturns—Labour undermined its core promise to deliver economic justice.
Financial details: the cost of caution
Labour’s cautious stance cost the public dearly:
Inflation-adjusted wage stagnation persisted.
Energy bills remained among the highest in Europe.
Housing affordability worsened, with property prices rising 12 per cent in 2025 alone.
The government’s reluctance to nationalize failing utilities like the Big Six energy companies or the privatised water firms allowed corporate profiteering to continue, costing consumers billions.
Opponents tout “market discipline,” but the public pays the price when markets fail to serve societal needs.
Historical and global context: lessons from the past and abroad
Britain has faced similar crossroads before. The post-war Labour government nationalized key industries to rebuild Britain’s economy and infrastructure — a move that secured decades of growth and social progress.
Conversely, Margaret Thatcher’s neoliberal revolution in the 1980s, which dismantled much of that, led to deep social fracture and regional decline.
Sadly, Starmer’s Labour is emulating the Thatcher model, rather than its own party’s illustrious history.
Globally, countries like Germany and the Nordic states show how public control and strategic state intervention can coexist with market economies to deliver social justice and economic stability.
Geopolitical dimension: the UK on the world stage
Labour’s faltering has global implications. The UK is still re-defining its post-Brexit identity, and needs strong governance to navigate trade tensions, climate change commitments, and the shifting power dynamics with the US, EU, and China.
An indecisive Labour government risks:
Weakening the UK’s negotiating hand internationally.
Undermining climate policy ambitions, especially in energy transition.
Failing to leverage public ownership models to secure strategic industries critical to national security.
Nationalisation, in particular, is often dismissed as an outdated relic, but it is a powerful tool:
It can reduce costs for consumers.
Secure long-term investments in infrastructure.
Align services with public interest rather than profit.
Labour’s failure to take this path in 2025 echoes the neoliberal failures of the past 40 years and alienates its core supporters.
Starmer and his cronies seem to have forgotten that public control can be efficient and innovative when properly managed—as we see in Scandinavian models.
And they are ignoring the fact that social ownership is not about stifling markets but about balancing power and ensuring that wealth generated by society serves society.
What would a real turnaround look like?
Labour must embrace:
Bold, transparent policy: Full public control or effective regulation of critical sectors (energy, transport, housing).
Progressive fiscal policy: Rejection of austerity, adoption of MMT-informed spending aimed at full employment and public investment.
Rebuilding of trust with grassroots and unions, reconnecting with working-class voters.
Clear communication: Owning bold moves unapologetically, framing them as investments in Britain’s future.
This will not be easy. Political risks include market backlash, hostile media campaigns, and intra-party conflict. But these risks pale compared with continued drift and decline.
Labour’s moment of reckoning
Labour’s 2025 story is one of missed opportunity and caution run amok. To reclaim its purpose and Britain’s future, the party must shed centrist timidity and embrace the bold, transformative policies its voters desperately need.
The alternative is clear: continued political erosion, growing inequality, and a country adrift.
Will Labour rise to the challenge or fade into history? The country—and the left—await the answer.
Share this post:
you might also like
Workplace battleground: Labour and Tories at war over employment
A&E fears fall on deaf ears
‘Abolition of the Bedroom Tax’ Bill is launched in Parliament