Cuts, cuts, and more cuts: Labour under Starmer

After 14 years of Tories and non-stop cuts to public spending, the majority of the UK thought Labour would be a breath of fresh air. But apparently not, apparently Labour under Keir Starmer aligns more with right-wing values than it does with those of the working class. 

During his first week as Prime Minister, Starmer had already made it abundantly clear that he wants to move Labour away from being left-wing. More recently, however, he has solidified his lack of support for people from lower socio-economic backgrounds, as Labour announced its plans to slash welfare benefits. 

The new reform aims to save the UK £5 billion by 2030 but has been heavily critcised by Labour MPs, charities and the general public. Both Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves have defended the cuts and said the country is in a grim financial situation after what the Tories did. Reports have stated that over 3 million households will feel a negative impact of the cuts. 

For a party that has long prided itself on supporting working-class communities and protecting the most vulnerable, this shift feels like a betrayal of its core values.

At the heart of the proposals is a crackdown on out-of-work benefits, with stricter rules and tighter eligibility requirements. Labour claims it wants to encourage people back into work, but critics argue this approach ignores the reality many people face: lack of suitable jobs, health issues, and caring responsibilities. Instead of offering genuine support, the government seems more focused on saving money — even if it comes at the expense of those who are already struggling.

The biggest impact of the latest cuts will be felt by the most vulnerable people in British society, those with disabilities. The new reforms will include changes to PIP eligibility, cuts to the health element of universal credit, and the scrapping of the work capability assessment. 

For anyone unfamiliar with what PIP is, it’s a tax free payment given to people aged 16-64 to help with extra costs that come with being disabled or suffering from long term ill health. It’s broken down into two segments: the mobility segment and the daily living segment. Although the mobility segment which provides support for people who are unable to move around freely will not face any cuts, the daily living segment will. 

The daily living segment provides financial support for people who need help with day-to-day tasks and following the government announcement it will be increasingly harder to qualify for. From 2026, PIP claimants will have to score 4 points or more on the PIP assessment to qualify and anyone scoring below will be denied support. 

Labour says the cuts are about fiscal responsibility and investing in services like the NHS. But balancing the books shouldn’t mean forcing disabled people and the unemployed to pay the price. There’s a growing feeling that this isn’t about fairness — it’s about optics, about looking “tough” on welfare to win votes.

In short, these welfare cuts risk undermining the very safety net millions depend on. And coming from a party that once stood for social justice, that feels especially disappointing.

Instead of punishing those already suffering, many of this countries problems could be solved by simply taxing the rich. 

It’s time we stop pretending that taxing the rich is radical — it’s just common sense. In the UK, the richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 50% combined. That’s not just inequality; it’s injustice. While millions struggle with rising living costs, crumbling public services, and underfunded healthcare, the ultra-wealthy continue to benefit from a system tilted in their favour.

Raising taxes on high earners, especially through wealth taxes like capital gains, inheritance, and property, could help fix this imbalance. It would provide much-needed funding for the NHS, schools, and social care — services that are lifelines for ordinary people.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t about punishing success. It’s about fairness. The richest in society have profited from public infrastructure and should contribute their fair share. Taxing the wealthy isn’t extreme — what’s extreme is allowing this level of inequality to continue unchecked.