Austerity hasn’t ended so don’t believe this Labour lie.

For years, the UK has felt the impact of austerity policies that began in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

Public services were squeezed, local councils faced deep budget cuts, and vital infrastructure projects were shelved in the name of fiscal responsibility.

Now, Keir Starmer’s Labour government claims that it has “ended austerity”—but the claim doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Ending austerity isn’t simply about halting further reductions; it requires a reversal of the damage done by past cuts.

If government spending was slashed during a period of belt-tightening, then maintaining those lower levels—without restoring services to pre-austerity standards—means austerity is still in place.

Labour may point to increased spending in certain areas as proof that austerity is over. But inflation, rising costs, and growing demand for public services mean that simply spending more in absolute terms doesn’t necessarily equate to a full recovery.

Without adjusting for these factors, claims of ending austerity are misleading.

Take local councils, which bore the brunt of austerity measures under previous governments. Despite Labour’s promises, many councils remain on the brink of financial collapse.

Social care budgets are still stretched to breaking point, libraries and youth services continue to close, and local authorities struggle to meet the needs of growing populations with funding that remains far below pre-austerity levels in real terms.

Similarly, the NHS—another area where Labour insists austerity is over—continues to suffer from chronic underfunding.

While headline figures might show increased budgets, this has failed to keep up with the rising demand, staffing shortages, and years of backlog in critical areas.

Simply put, more money does not always mean adequate funding if it fails to meet the scale of the crisis created by past cuts.

A genuine end to austerity would mean that public services were fully restored, with funding levels that match not only past spending but also the growing needs of the population.

It would mean that local councils aren’t facing insolvency, that the NHS isn’t still stretched beyond capacity, and that investment in infrastructure, education, and social care meets pre-austerity expectations.

Instead, what we see is a government that has shifted the rhetoric but not the reality.

The policies that defined austerity—underfunded services, struggling local authorities, and a lack of public sector investment—remain in place.

Without a full financial commitment to undo the damage of the past decade, Labour’s claims to have “ended austerity” are nothing more than political spin.

Austerity doesn’t end when the government stops making new cuts.

It ends when the consequences of past cuts are fully addressed and public services are restored to the level they would have reached without austerity in the first place.

By that measure, Labour’s claims are premature at best and misleading at worst.

Until the country sees real investment that reverses the damage of past cuts, austerity remains very much alive.