Sir Keir Starmer’s tenure as Labour leader and Prime Minister has been marked by a series of policy reversals, prompting scrutiny from both supporters and critics. His allies characterise these changes as pragmatic responses to evolving circumstances, while opponents argue they reveal a lack of a consistent political vision.
One of the most significant reversals involves tax policy. Labour’s manifesto included an explicit pledge not to raise national insurance contributions, income tax rates, or VAT. Despite this, Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ first budget introduced an increase in the employers’ national insurance rate as part of a plan to generate £24 billion in revenue to address fiscal concerns. The Office for Budget Responsibility warned that this move could result in job losses, reduced wage growth, and slower economic expansion. The government contended that this increase did not violate manifesto commitments because it targeted employers rather than employees, but economists from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others highlighted the lack of such a distinction in the original manifesto wording. The Times rated this policy reversal a “5/5” on their u-turn scale.
Starmer’s shifting stance on women’s rights, particularly relating to trans issues, represents another notable change. In a 2022 interview, Starmer stated unequivocally that “trans women are women” under the law, referencing the 2004 Gender Recognition Act and the 2010 Equality Act. However, following a Supreme Court ruling that the terms “women” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer specifically to biological sex, he adjusted his language, describing a woman as an “adult female.” The Times also assessed this reversal as a “5/5” u-turn.
In the lead-up to winning the leadership, Starmer had made several promises that he later abandoned once in government. Among those reversed were commitments to abolish tuition fees, scrap the two-child benefit cap, maintain universal credit, fight for free movement with the European Union, increase taxes on the wealthy, and nationalise energy and water companies. These wholesale changes drew a similarly high u-turn rating of “5/5.”
Agricultural policy, especially regarding inheritance tax on family farms, has also seen a contentious shift. Starmer had pledged a “new relationship” with farmers, acknowledging their distinct status compared to other businesses. Despite these assurances, the government introduced inheritance tax on family farms in its budget. Environment Secretary Steve Reed, who had earlier dismissed claims that Labour would remove farmers’ tax breaks as “desperate nonsense,” was reportedly only informed of the change the day before its announcement. This decision has triggered widespread agricultural protests, earning a u-turn rating of “4/5.”
The government’s approach to the concerns of WASPI women—those affected by changes to the state pension age—experienced a similar about-face. Starmer had characterised the situation as a “real injustice” and promised intervention alongside his frontbench team advocating for compensation. Nevertheless, the government later rejected compensation claims, citing issues of fairness and taxpayer cost. Starmer indicated the financial burden was unsustainable, leading to a “4/5” u-turn rating.
Labour’s environmental agenda has faced scaling back since the party’s time in opposition. Initially, the party pledged £28 billion annually to green investments aimed at meeting climate goals. This figure was substantially reduced to £4.7 billion per year, with Starmer describing larger spending as “irresponsible.” The once-central “green prosperity plan” has diminished in prominence, with cuts already hitting a National Wealth Fund and the state-backed energy firm, Great British Energy (GB Energy). Questions remain about whether initiatives such as home insulation investments will be maintained, meriting a “3/5” rating for this retreat.
An example of nuanced policy shifts comes from Labour’s handling of solar panel supply chains. Earlier in 2024, Labour instructed its MPs to oppose an amendment from the House of Lords aimed at banning solar panels connected to Chinese slave labour. Ninety-two Labour MPs abstained in the vote, reflecting internal discord. Subsequently, the government introduced its own amendment obliging GB Energy to prevent slavery and human trafficking within its supply chains. Ministers indicated a desire for GB Energy to lead the industry on this issue, though critics warned this might hinder net-zero goals. The Times assigned this a “3/5” u-turn rating.
Education policy has also seen modifications. Starmer initially proposed a schools bill that appeared to curtail the autonomy of academy schools—institutions free from local government control and long supported by multiple governments. Following criticism, he adjusted the bill and later praised academies for improving standards, emphasising that the government would not prevent them from increasing teachers' pay. This admitted policy softening received a “2/5” u-turn classification.
Overall, the pattern of these reversals reveals significant adjustments across key policy areas since Sir Keir Starmer’s rise to leadership and tenure in government. Whether viewed as pragmatic flexibility or inconsistency, these shifts have shaped the current political landscape in the UK.
Source: Noah Wire Services