Autumn of discontent
Are Labour's plans for government already faltering?
This week’s Labour Party conference was supposed to be a victory lap—a triumphant moment in the honeymoon period of a new government ushered in with a landslide majority—evoking memories of New Labour’s anthem “Things Can Only Get Better”, a rallying cry of optimism and renewal.
Instead it feels like one of a government nearing the end of its life cycle—despite being barely three months into office. Amidst scandals, factional infighting, and a flurry of briefing wars from within Downing Street, from the outside the mood at the Labour conference seems anything but celebratory.
More than just a public relations challenge, this week’s conference represents Labour’s struggle to define itself in power. Rather than seizing the moment to chart a bold course for the nation, the event has often felt like an incoherent mess of conflicting worldviews—a microcosm of Labour’s internal battles for its soul. The party’s factions remain locked in a permanent war of attrition, reflective of a first-past-the-post system that forces disparate ideologies into uneasy coexistence rather than allowing amicable separation.
At the heart of Labour’s challenge is its tenuous connection with the electorate.
Keir Starmer’s electoral bond with the British public was always more transactional than emotional—a marriage of convenience born out of frustration with over a decade of Tory mismanagement. After 14 years of stagnant wages, the chaos of Partygate, and the economic fallout of Liz Truss’s short-lived premiership, the British public was ready to embrace the non-threatening, not-Tory option.
Yet, Starmer’s technocratic style lacks the charisma and inspirational vision needed to build deeper, lasting connections. His manifesto, while identifying the root causes of Britain’s decline, has thus far struggled to offer compelling, transformative solutions.
Labour’s policy platform does offer some substantive proposals that should excite its base: from the nationalisation of rail to the creation of a public energy company and new employment rights. However, these initiatives are overshadowed by the government’s broader struggle to connect with a cynical public. Voters who have grown accustomed to disappointment are unlikely to be moved by discussions on planning applications or the formation of an industrial strategy, concepts that resonate more with policy wonks than the average citizen.
This Labour government’s task is not just to govern but to inspire—and this week’s conference feels like a missed opportunity to make that case.
The scale of the challenge facing Labour cannot be understated. The new occupants of Downing Street have inherited a daunting economic landscape. The era of cheap money is over, and with interest rates at their highest levels in years, the fiscal space for bold public investment has been severely constrained. Servicing public debt now costs the taxpayer almost as much as the entire education budget, making it difficult to square the party’s more ambitious promises with the economic realities of the post-COVID world.
Much of the government’s hopes rest on economic growth, framed by Starmer as “the light at the end of the tunnel.” Yet, the upcoming budget from Chancellor Rachel Reeves will be a critical test of whether Labour can navigate these fiscal constraints effectively. The government’s rhetoric of “taking tough long-term decisions” is only reassuring if it translates into tangible improvements in the public realm—something that remains uncertain as Labour grapples with the complex realities of governing in the shadow of persistent economic and public service challenges.
Labour’s broader political strategy appears to hinge on portraying itself as the antidote to years of Conservative mismanagement; Starmer’s promise to “stabilise the economy, clear out the Tory rot, and fix the foundations of the nation” has been a consistent refrain. But this message is undercut by ongoing problems that seem only to deepen under Labour’s watch: the continued struggles of the NHS, the failure to address surging immigration, and a public increasingly restless for change.
The Prime Minister’s tone of inevitability—suggesting that things must get worse before they get better—risks reinforcing public disillusionment, rather than rallying support for Labour’s long-term vision.
Starmer’s reputation as a leader of integrity has also taken a hit in recent weeks, with headlines dominated by questions over his personal donations and the controversy surrounding the scrapping of winter fuel payments. The latter issue became a flashpoint at this week’s conference, with major unions like Unite and Unison challenging the government’s stance, creating a highly visible internal row that could overshadow Labour’s broader message.
For Labour, the Liverpool conference was meant to be a moment of control—a chance to set the agenda and remind the nation of the potential for purposeful, serious governance. Instead, it has laid bare the challenges facing the party as it struggles to marry its policy ambitions with a compelling, unified narrative. Those close to Starmer insist that the conference will ultimately be remembered as the moment Labour articulated a hopeful vision for the country’s future, outlining plans for rail nationalisation, renters reform, workers’ rights, and more.
But to seize that narrative, Labour must first overcome the immediate noise of factional disputes, scandal, and scepticism, and demonstrate that it can deliver meaningful change. Only then can the government begin to reclaim the sense of purpose that it so desperately needs.
Mixed messaging
Starmer’s promise to “do politics differently” was one of the key selling points of Labour’s successful election campaign. As a leader, he presented himself as the antidote to years of Tory corruption, a trustworthy figure committed to restoring integrity to British politics. However, just months into his premiership, Starmer finds himself entangled in a series of controversies that threaten to undermine the very brand he has built. From infighting in Downing Street to revelations of questionable gifts and backroom deals, Labour’s early days in power have been marked by the very kinds of dysfunction and scandal they were elected to end.
Starmer’s appeal to voters was largely based on trust. He positioned himself as a politician who understood the public’s frustrations and was willing to put service before self-interest. Yet, it has not taken long for the cracks to appear. In a string of public relations disasters, Starmer has been criticised for accepting a range of freebies, from luxury suits and designer glasses to hospitality at Arsenal games and tickets to high-profile concerts.
It’s not that these actions are illegal; there is no evidence of broken rules or undue influence. But for a leader who built his reputation on propriety, such indulgences send a deeply contradictory message.
Labour’s unforced errors in government stand in stark contrast to the discipline that characterised the party’s time in opposition. During the campaign, Starmer was relentless in his attacks on Tory corruption, taking aim at Rishi Sunak’s wealth and privilege, and the perceived cronyism of the Conservative Party. But now, with Starmer’s own financial affairs under scrutiny, those attacks ring hollow. His critics have seized on the hypocrisy: a leader who rails against elite excess but seems happy to accept his own share of perks.
The irony is not lost on a public that has become increasingly cynical about politics and politicians.
The issue is not simply one of optics; it speaks to a deeper problem of trust and credibility. When a leader sets themselves up as a paragon of virtue, there is no room for even minor infractions. The slightest deviation from the image of moral rectitude can be damaging, especially so early in their premiership. Starmer’s image has suffered significant blows, with The Daily Mail dubbing him “Free Gear Keir” in reference to his lavish freebies. These jibes stick because they resonate with an electorate that expected something better.
The Labour government’s handling of these scandals has been clumsy at best. What should have been an opportunity to distance themselves from the Tory sleaze of the past has instead become a lesson in how quickly political capital can be squandered. The controversies have given the right-wing media ample ammunition to attack Starmer, and the Labour leader’s reluctance to address the issue head-on has only added to the sense of dysfunction. For a government that promised to be different, it increasingly feels as though Starmer has simply taken the Tories as his role model.
Beyond personal scandals, Labour’s policy missteps have also played a significant role in its faltering momentum. Decisions such as scrapping the winter fuel allowance for all but the poorest pensioners and the mass release of prisoners have raised eyebrows, prompting questions about the government’s priorities. These moves, combined with pointlessly authoritarian measures like banning smoking in beer gardens, have painted a picture of a government that is both out of touch and lacking in direction. Such policies, usually associated with desperate governments on their way out, have no place in a fresh administration barely out of the starting blocks.
One of the most damaging misjudgements has been the handling of the winter fuel allowance. The decision to transform it from a universal benefit into a means-tested one was always going to be controversial, but Labour’s failure to adequately communicate the rationale behind the policy has left many feeling betrayed. The optics of stripping support from pensioners, particularly in the context of broader austerity measures, have been a gift to the opposition. The government could have framed the policy as a necessary step to better target resources, aligning it with a broader narrative of fiscal responsibility and fairness. Instead, the lack of a coherent argument has made it look like yet another penny-pinching exercise, further eroding Labour’s standing with its base.
This failure to communicate effectively is not just a strategic blunder; it reflects a broader identity crisis within Labour’s ranks. The government has announced a raft of policies, from planning reform and rail nationalisation to the creation of GB Energy and the strengthening of workers’ rights. However, these initiatives have been lost in the noise of negative headlines. Labour has struggled to craft a compelling narrative that ties these policies together into a cohesive vision for the country.
Without a unifying story, the government’s efforts appear piecemeal and directionless, leaving the public to wonder what Labour truly stands for.
Current polling reflects the damage done by these unforced errors. Labour’s early promise of renewal is now overshadowed by the perception of drift and incompetence. In many ways, the party’s situation resembles that of Blair’s New Labour in its later years, when the narrative of ambition and transformation gave way to a sense of malaise. But unlike Blair, who offered a vision of a young, dynamic Britain, Starmer’s message has been muddled and reactive, too often focused on the problems he inherited rather than the future he aims to build.
Labour’s recent cock ups underscore the importance of narrative; Starmer has spoken frequently about the need to rebuild Britain and tackle the social and economic rot left behind by the Conservatives. Yet, these are abstract concepts that fail to capture the public’s imagination. What is missing is a clear, tangible vision of what a Labour-led Britain would look like—a story that links the government’s various policies to a broader project of national renewal.
At the heart of this should be a focus on economic growth and opportunity. Labour’s policies on green investment, housing, and public ownership all hinge on the idea of creating a more prosperous, dynamic country. But rather than framing these initiatives as steps towards a brighter future, the government has often defaulted to a narrative of constraint and crisis management. A more hopeful message—one that connects economic growth with a more inclusive, tolerant society—could help Labour reclaim its momentum and re-energise its base.
Labour’s early stumbles have been a painful reminder that the transition from opposition to government is never easy. The party’s current struggles are not insurmountable, but they do require a recalibration of both message and strategy. To regain the trust of the public, Labour must recommit to the principles that brought it to power: transparency, integrity, and a clear sense of purpose. Without these, the government risks becoming just another chapter in the long story of British political disillusionment.
The spectre of populism
Their ambitious promise of a “decade of national renewal” puts Labour at a critical juncture: to cement their position as the party of government, they must deliver on the transformative change they have promised, or risk losing the fragile coalition of voters that propelled them to power.
While Labour currently enjoys a large majority of seats in the House of Commons, their victory was built on a precarious foundation. A failure to address economic despair and disillusionment could open the door to a populist resurgence, reminiscent of political shifts across continental Europe. Reform UK, under Nigel Farage, is poised to exploit Labour’s weaknesses, presenting a serious challenge that Labour must confront if it hopes to avoid becoming a one-term government.
Starmer’s challenge is not unprecedented. Leaders like Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, and Clement Attlee succeeded because they saw beyond the immediate demands of governance, recognising and responding to the underlying forces shaping the electorate's fears and hopes. Labour’s initial policy moves, such as modest reforms to workers’ rights, have sparked criticism from both ends of the political spectrum, highlighting the delicate balance Starmer must maintain at the helm. These reforms may represent the early steps of a longer transformative journey, but they must be substantial enough to sustain voters’ confidence in Labour’s ability to deliver meaningful change.
A key moment in Thatcher’s second term came during an economic crisis when she chose to stay the course despite soaring unemployment and public discontent. The gamble paid off as the country’s attitude shifted, and what once seemed politically impossible became plausible. Starmer may soon face his own crisis of this scale (having already weathered racially-motivated riots and faced with heightened international tensions) and, like Thatcher, will have to decide between staying true to Labour’s transformative missions or retreating into the orthodoxy of the past.
Labour insiders acknowledge this tension; the choice between staying fiscally conservative or being bold enough to disrupt the status quo is a defining one. The stakes are high: too little action could make the government look ineffectual, feeding the narratives of populist opponents.
Labour’s strategists are acutely aware of the risks posed by Reform. Despite Labour’s impressive seat gains in the 2024 election, the party’s majority is broad but shallow, with numerous Labour-held constituencies now second places for Reform. Farage’s party secured more votes in total than the Liberal Democrats, but gained only five MPs due to the quirks of the first-past-the-post system.
In dozens of constituencies, Labour’s vote share fell dramatically, signalling an underlying volatility that could easily shift back in favour of the right if Labour’s performance disappoints. A revived Conservative Party, potentially aligned with Reform, could threaten Labour’s hold on power, making the next election a perilous battle to retain their current position.
Reform’s growing presence in Labour’s heartlands—particularly the Red Wall seats of northern England and the Midlands—is a cause for concern. Farage’s strategy of portraying Labour as an out-of-touch party of the liberal elite aims to draw working-class voters away, exploiting disillusionment with the mainstream political landscape. Reform’s focus on issues such as immigration, economic inequality, and net-zero policies resonates with voters who feel left behind. With Farage openly targeting Labour constituencies and mobilising a permanent grassroots campaign, Labour must contend with the reality that Reform is no longer just a spoiler for the Conservatives but a direct competitor for their own electorate.
Labour’s immigration policy has become a particularly contentious battleground. Starmer’s recent praise of Italy’s right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni for her efforts in reducing illegal immigration was an attempt to show voters that Labour is serious about controlling borders. However, this is not just a political ploy; it reflects a genuine need to engage with voter concerns on immigration in a way that does not simply echo right-wing talking points but offers practical solutions. Reform’s populist narrative, which includes promises to cut taxes while increasing spending on the NHS, appeals to voters frustrated by what they perceive as the fundamental failures of mainstream parties.
Labour’s challenge is to articulate a coherent, evidence-based approach to immigration that addresses both security and integration without alienating its progressive base.
The economic landscape is another critical area where Labour must differentiate itself from Reform’s populist rhetoric. Starmer’s government has little fiscal room to manoeuvre, which means that every policy decision sends a message about the party’s priorities. Labour must demonstrate that it can make tough choices that reflect the values of its voters—protecting working families, investing in public services, and ensuring that those who contribute to society are rewarded. The upcoming budget by Chancellor Rachel Reeves will be a defining moment, as it will either reinforce or undermine Labour’s narrative of renewal. If the budget is perceived as too austere, it could drive even more voters towards Farage’s anti-establishment outfit.
Labour must also address the broader sense of disenfranchisement that drives support for Reform UK. Farage’s appeal is not merely about policy positions but about a deeper promise to shake up a political system that many voters see as rigged against them. A significant portion of Reform’s support comes from those who feel disconnected from the benefits of economic growth and disillusioned with the ability of mainstream politics to deliver meaningful change. These are not voters who fundamentally oppose democratic norms but who have lost faith in traditional parties to represent their interests. Labour’s task is to reconnect with these voters by demonstrating that it can be a party of the people, responsive to their needs and capable of enacting policies that improve their daily lives.
The rise of populism in Europe offers a cautionary tale for Labour. As former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has warned, the erosion of the political centre has allowed far-right parties to gain influence across the continent, often with devastating consequences for social cohesion and democratic norms. If Labour fails to present a compelling, hopeful vision of the future—one that addresses economic inequality, restores faith in public institutions, and tackles the underlying causes of voter discontent—it risks leaving the door wide open for Farage and Reform to fill the void.
The stakes could not be higher. Labour’s ability to deliver on its promise of national renewal will determine not just the outcome of the next election but the future trajectory of British politics. The threat posed by Farage’s populist movement is real and growing, and Labour must rise to the challenge with urgency and resolve.
Starmer’s government has the opportunity to redefine what it means to be a progressive force in modern Britain, but time is running out. The electorate is watching, and the clock is ticking.