Labour’s economic programme: hoodwinking, self-limiting, and failing

If you had asked me in July last year whether I had much hope for Labour’s plans for fixing our stagnating economy, our underfunded public services, and chronically weak social investment, I might have (cautiously) said “maybe”. But a year and four months later, I think I’d like to change my answer to “absolutely not”.

You would think that after fourteen years of being stuck in opposition, whether that be due to bacon sarnies or the Brexit bonanza, they would have had time to think. I, personally, at that time went to school, college, got a job, and fell in and out of love (much like the Parliamentary Labour Party does with their leadership), went to university (and somehow ended up as a Liberal Democrat), but I always thought about what I wanted to do.

However, much like a university student who procrastinates right up until deadline day (pre-ADHD meds me), they’ve put forward something that would barely get a “pass”. They came into government, telling us they would fix the dire state of our economy, but if anything they’ve done the opposite. They spent months handwringing about the importance of work, and intimidating vulnerable people with loss of benefits if they didn’t, but now unemployment is rising – due to their own policy. They promised there would be “no new taxes on working people”, and just as Keir Starmer hoodwinked Labour members in 2021, he’s hoodwinked the public with more stealth taxes.

Rachel Reeves has put in place her “fiscal rules”, and while she may claim to be pro-investment, her very own rules discourage borrowing to invest. She talked about Labour being the “Party of Work”, but by failing to borrow to invest in infrastructure projects, she’s left working people far worse off, with less opportunities, and worse social mobility. Labour are just incoherent, self-contradictory, and seem utterly unable to deliver for Britain right now.

Of course, you might be thinking “we’ve seen worse”, and you’d be right. I mean Liz Truss was something else, even if she was just PM for 49 days. By the way, on behalf of the Young Liberals (the “Liberal Democrat Youth and Students” at the time): we’re not taking the blame for that one. But, just getting to my point: the bar for a “bad budget” is too high, and Britain deserves so much better. This is a country begging for investment, for growth, for social mobility and a way forward, but Labour just don’t seem to know what they want to do

To be fair to Rachel Reeves, it’s not an easy job – it’s probably harder than being Prime Minister, and in the face of what some horrid pundits and broadsheets have spouted, she’s kept going. But perhaps it’s time for her to reflect, to start looking at other levers she can pull, and start really going for the growth that we need to come out of this.

We must grow out of austerity economics, we must restore state capacity to what it should be, and improve wage growth so we can live better. We are not in terminal decline as a country, but we are in a bind – this government can’t seem to invest in people, and as a result those people can’t afford to invest much more in them.

* Jack Carter is the Co-Accessibility, Diversity, and Inclusion Officer of the Young Liberals, a Computing student with an interest in social and economic policy, mental health, and digital fields.

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

3 Comments

  • Chris Haigh 28th Nov '25 - 1:32pm

    You’ve got to empathise with Rachel Reeves a bit because the Tories have inflicted so much damage on our economy that it’s difficult to know where to start to put right, and with absolutely no financial wiggle room. She has to explain the damage done by the Brexiteers and try and remedy it as per Sir Ed.

  • Peter Martin 30th Nov '25 - 11:41am

    “We must grow out of austerity economics, we must restore state capacity to what it should be, and improve wage growth so we can live better……

    OK but isn’t this what those to the left of this Labour govt are arguing for?

    The Labour Party are being attacked from both the left and the right.

    They aren’t socialist enough to want to side with the Palestinians, properly renationalise the utilities and post , support a wealth tax and a fundamental redistribution of wealth in society etc but they are liberal enough to annoy the right on questions of gender identity, a recently re-discovered concern for the plight of poorer children and of course a perceived softness to criminals and on the immigration question generally.

    They Labour Party are aiming at maybe 25% of the population who might agree with them politically but many of whom will be supporters of the Lib Dems and other centrist parties already and will be wanting a much more pro EU line. In any case, even if they are close politically they’ve likely never identified with the Labour Party for cultural reasons.

    A Lib Dem government wouldn’t be that much different economically, or politically. Except perhaps they would have a more pro EU foreign policy.

  • Linda Chung 30th Nov '25 - 3:58pm

    Hi Jack, great article, thanks. I agree.
    But after the rhetoric, what are we, the young and old, Lib Dems, going to do about it? I reckon, if we can have a coherent economic policy, followed by clear action, that’s intelligible to everyone, we can make good strides in the polls.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Paul Holmes
    Rob, you offer two possible groups of key target supporters for the Liberal Democrats. However, both are, as you note, just subsets of the affluent middle class...
  • Peter Wrigley
    @Jana: I regrade myself as an extremest for liberalism: the maximum amount of individual freedom that doesn't infringe the freedom others. I’m also pretty ke...
  • Roland
    >”He’d voted in every general election since 1974, he said, and this was the first time he had ever voted for a winning candidate.” Well I could say t...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Jack, Starmer knew how to have good relations with the Trades Unions. Pity it didn't last. As soon as he was PM he was suspending his own MPs for doing wha...
  • Richard Dickson
    Building a brand does indeed involve consideration of WHAT (issues and policies). But more important for creating lasting memories and trust, and winning heads,...