Share this post:
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer wants us to judge his government by its intentions, rather than its achievements.
He has written in The Guardian, and as I type this, he has just given a speech, trying to brainwash us into believing that even if he hasn’t made the right decisions so far, he will in the future.
Here’s how he put it in The Guardian:
“The government’s purpose is nothing less than the renewal of our economy, our communities and our state.
“By doing that, we will end decline and restore faith in our country. We will take on those on the left and right who only offer grievance and whose approach would lead to further decline.
“In a speech on Monday, I will place the budget in the context of the broader economic renewal on which the government will be judged at the end of this parliament.
“If we are to achieve the national renewal we seek, we must do more to encourage growth, to tackle inactivity among young people and to pursue closer international cooperation with our trading partners.”
Let’s discuss the detail.
Please take a moment to complete the Vox Political Reader Survey.
Your answers are anonymous and will help shape future coverage.
Click here to take part.
The core problem is that he is asking to be judged on intentions, not outcomes.
Starmer’s entire piece is an exercise in narrative management: don’t look at the Budget itself — look at my “mission”.
That is telling, because governments that are confident in their achievements point to results, not aspirations.
Instead, we have been given a series of claims that don’t match reality. Let’s dissect them:
Claim 1: “We made the right choices… cutting bills, protecting the NHS, tackling child poverty”
The reality is a little different.
The so-called “£150 off energy bills” is a temporary, heavily-spun measure that does not address spiralling standing charges or structural energy profiteering. It is, at best, a sticking-plaster – and Starmer once claimed he didn’t do “sticking-plaster” politics.
“Protecting the NHS” is contradicted by continued real-terms funding pressures, workforce shortages, and the ongoing shift towards privatised delivery mechanisms (accelerators, surgical hubs, private outsourcing).
“Removing the two-child limit” did not appear in the Budget. What happened was a restatement of intention coupled with a delayed and unclear timetable — and even then, the OBR has already said it is not enough to make a dent in poverty without broader welfare changes.
None of these measures reverses the decade of deterioration caused by the Conservatives. They merely “manage” the rate of decline. And oh, look! Starmer just said he’s against “managed decline” in his speech.
He is taking credit for things he hasn’t done, or has not done fully – and he is misleading us about them.
Rachel Reeves has been in serious trouble for allegedly misleading us. Will Starmer get the same treatment now?
Claim 2: “We ensured revenue was raised fairly… those with the broadest shoulders contributed their fair share”
Economists across the board — including many not hostile to Labour — have pointed out that the Budget entrenched:
- The freeze in income tax thresholds (a Tory policy, extended by Labour), creating a stealth tax drag that hits the lowest earners hardest.
- No wealth tax, no serious reform of capital gains, no equalisation of unearned income with earned income.
- Corporation tax concessions and reliefs that favour large players over SMEs.
Nothing here amounts to “fairer taxation”.
Claim 3: “The budget created a stable economic environment, driving down inflation and bond yields.”
Inflation was already falling because of global energy trends and post-pandemic supply normalisation. Government policy was only a marginal contributor.
Bond yields moved because of central bank signals, not because of Reeves’s speech.
This is classic political appropriation of macroeconomic trends that were set in motion long before Labour arrived.
Claim 4: “£120bn extra capital investment… biggest planning reforms… Heathrow/Gatwick expansion… trade deals with EU/India/US”
The majority of the cited “investment” is repackaged or re-phased spending already in departmental pipelines.
The planning reforms are the implementation of de-regulatory demands long lobbied for by developers, not strategic public planning.
The Heathrow/Gatwick expansion is environmentally incoherent and undermines climate targets Labour claims to respect.
The supposed “trade deals” barely exist: the EU one is a thin add-on, nothing remotely like single market alignment; the India/US deals are still little more than talking points.
Claim 5: “We must sweep away unnecessary regulation… there is nothing progressive about regulation that adds costs.”
This is neoliberal boilerplating, almost word-for-word from Conservative doctrine, with:
- De-regulation framed as pro-poor politics
- “Red tape” blamed for low growth, rather than corporate behaviour, profiteering, or wage suppression
- The business secretary tasked with eliminating “gold-plating” — Tory language, not Labour language
This is precisely why neoliberal actors like Starmer should not be classified as centre-left: this is right-wing economics in its purest form and in that sense, Starmer is no better than the Tories he replaced.
In fact, by labelling himself as the candidate for “Change”, he is worse.
Claim 6: “We inherited a failing welfare system… we will help young people with health conditions thrive”
Starmer was softening the public for more welfare conditionality.
The giveaways in his language are clear:
- He wants to “tackle inactivity among young people”;
- He says they have been “written off as too sick to work”;
- He says there is a “cycle of worklessness and dependency”
And he has commissioned Alan Milburn — a Blairite privatisation evangelist — to redesign youth welfare.
This is not compassion – it is preparation for tightening assessments and forcing disabled and neurodivergent people into low-paid work — precisely the Tory model he pretends to condemn.
Claim 7: “We will move towards a closer trading relationship with the EU.”
This is the single truthful line — but even here, it is thin.
Labour refused to back single market or customs union membership before and after the election.
“Closer trading relationship” means the minimum that can be achieved without enraging Brexit-sceptic swing voters.
It is marginal improvement dressed as strategic vision.
The most dishonest premise in the whole piece
Starmer portrays all criticism of his approach as “grievance” from “the left and right”.
This is an authoritarian manoeuvre: delegitimise opposition by lumping all dissent together.
It implies: “Only I am serious; all others are unserious.”
When leaders start saying “I alone represent seriousness”, they are insulating themselves from accountability.
Is there any reason to believe him?
No:
His claims do not match the Budget’s actual content.
- He has repackaged Tory economic thinking as Labour renewal.
- He has abandoned his own previous promises, repeatedly.
- The numbers do not support the narrative.
- His “missions” are rhetorical veneers over austerity-by-another-name.
- He pre-emptively pathologises critics rather than addressing criticism.
- The direction of travel — deregulation, welfare conditionality, planning reform for developers — is entirely neoliberal.
A government that intended a genuine programme of renewal would be reversing inequality, rebuilding public services, investing in people, reforming taxation, and strengthening workplace rights. Labour is doing none of these things.
This is not economic renewal.
It is mostly nonsense, and the parts that aren’t nonsense are misdirection.
It is continuity Conservatism with slightly more polished language.
Share this post:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Keir Starmer has been telling us nonsense about the Budget and the government
Share this post:
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer wants us to judge his government by its intentions, rather than its achievements.
He has written in The Guardian, and as I type this, he has just given a speech, trying to brainwash us into believing that even if he hasn’t made the right decisions so far, he will in the future.
Here’s how he put it in The Guardian:
“The government’s purpose is nothing less than the renewal of our economy, our communities and our state.
“By doing that, we will end decline and restore faith in our country. We will take on those on the left and right who only offer grievance and whose approach would lead to further decline.
“In a speech on Monday, I will place the budget in the context of the broader economic renewal on which the government will be judged at the end of this parliament.
“If we are to achieve the national renewal we seek, we must do more to encourage growth, to tackle inactivity among young people and to pursue closer international cooperation with our trading partners.”
Let’s discuss the detail.
The core problem is that he is asking to be judged on intentions, not outcomes.
Starmer’s entire piece is an exercise in narrative management: don’t look at the Budget itself — look at my “mission”.
That is telling, because governments that are confident in their achievements point to results, not aspirations.
Instead, we have been given a series of claims that don’t match reality. Let’s dissect them:
Claim 1: “We made the right choices… cutting bills, protecting the NHS, tackling child poverty”
The reality is a little different.
The so-called “£150 off energy bills” is a temporary, heavily-spun measure that does not address spiralling standing charges or structural energy profiteering. It is, at best, a sticking-plaster – and Starmer once claimed he didn’t do “sticking-plaster” politics.
“Protecting the NHS” is contradicted by continued real-terms funding pressures, workforce shortages, and the ongoing shift towards privatised delivery mechanisms (accelerators, surgical hubs, private outsourcing).
“Removing the two-child limit” did not appear in the Budget. What happened was a restatement of intention coupled with a delayed and unclear timetable — and even then, the OBR has already said it is not enough to make a dent in poverty without broader welfare changes.
None of these measures reverses the decade of deterioration caused by the Conservatives. They merely “manage” the rate of decline. And oh, look! Starmer just said he’s against “managed decline” in his speech.
He is taking credit for things he hasn’t done, or has not done fully – and he is misleading us about them.
Rachel Reeves has been in serious trouble for allegedly misleading us. Will Starmer get the same treatment now?
Claim 2: “We ensured revenue was raised fairly… those with the broadest shoulders contributed their fair share”
Economists across the board — including many not hostile to Labour — have pointed out that the Budget entrenched:
Nothing here amounts to “fairer taxation”.
Claim 3: “The budget created a stable economic environment, driving down inflation and bond yields.”
Inflation was already falling because of global energy trends and post-pandemic supply normalisation. Government policy was only a marginal contributor.
Bond yields moved because of central bank signals, not because of Reeves’s speech.
This is classic political appropriation of macroeconomic trends that were set in motion long before Labour arrived.
Claim 4: “£120bn extra capital investment… biggest planning reforms… Heathrow/Gatwick expansion… trade deals with EU/India/US”
The majority of the cited “investment” is repackaged or re-phased spending already in departmental pipelines.
The planning reforms are the implementation of de-regulatory demands long lobbied for by developers, not strategic public planning.
The Heathrow/Gatwick expansion is environmentally incoherent and undermines climate targets Labour claims to respect.
The supposed “trade deals” barely exist: the EU one is a thin add-on, nothing remotely like single market alignment; the India/US deals are still little more than talking points.
Claim 5: “We must sweep away unnecessary regulation… there is nothing progressive about regulation that adds costs.”
This is neoliberal boilerplating, almost word-for-word from Conservative doctrine, with:
This is precisely why neoliberal actors like Starmer should not be classified as centre-left: this is right-wing economics in its purest form and in that sense, Starmer is no better than the Tories he replaced.
In fact, by labelling himself as the candidate for “Change”, he is worse.
Claim 6: “We inherited a failing welfare system… we will help young people with health conditions thrive”
Starmer was softening the public for more welfare conditionality.
The giveaways in his language are clear:
And he has commissioned Alan Milburn — a Blairite privatisation evangelist — to redesign youth welfare.
This is not compassion – it is preparation for tightening assessments and forcing disabled and neurodivergent people into low-paid work — precisely the Tory model he pretends to condemn.
Claim 7: “We will move towards a closer trading relationship with the EU.”
This is the single truthful line — but even here, it is thin.
Labour refused to back single market or customs union membership before and after the election.
“Closer trading relationship” means the minimum that can be achieved without enraging Brexit-sceptic swing voters.
It is marginal improvement dressed as strategic vision.
The most dishonest premise in the whole piece
Starmer portrays all criticism of his approach as “grievance” from “the left and right”.
This is an authoritarian manoeuvre: delegitimise opposition by lumping all dissent together.
It implies: “Only I am serious; all others are unserious.”
When leaders start saying “I alone represent seriousness”, they are insulating themselves from accountability.
Is there any reason to believe him?
No:
His claims do not match the Budget’s actual content.
A government that intended a genuine programme of renewal would be reversing inequality, rebuilding public services, investing in people, reforming taxation, and strengthening workplace rights. Labour is doing none of these things.
This is not economic renewal.
It is mostly nonsense, and the parts that aren’t nonsense are misdirection.
It is continuity Conservatism with slightly more polished language.
Share this post:
Like this:
you might also like
Workplace battleground: Labour and Tories at war over employment
Like this:
A&E fears fall on deaf ears
Like this:
‘Abolition of the Bedroom Tax’ Bill is launched in Parliament
Like this:
Like this: