As Labour attempts to juggle its promises of change with the realities of fiscal constraints, the party finds itself in a familiar bind: trying to balance the hunger for transformation with the weight of economic responsibility. The result is a budget that leaves many questioning if real change will ever come.
Labour’s mantra of “change” was the rallying cry that brought the party to power. By the summer of 2024, after years of economic turmoil and political unrest, the British public was desperate for something new. Yet, as change became the central promise, the specifics of what that change would look like became secondary. In fact, voters just wanted anything different from the status quo.
Despite this, the incoming Labour government, under Prime Minister Rachel Reeves, is operating within tight fiscal constraints, shaped largely by global economic instability. While Reeves has admitted that the world has changed since last autumn’s budget, her approach remains firmly rooted in the same rules governing fiscal responsibility. She insists that her borrowing limits are non-negotiable and that taxes won’t increase unless absolutely necessary. The result? A round of spending cuts that closely mirrors the austerity measures of previous governments, despite Labour’s promises of change.
Reeves’ plans include cuts that will directly affect vulnerable citizens, including more than 3 million UK families. Universal Credit, designed to help people with disabilities or those unable to work, is set to shrink, while the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), a vital financial lifeline for 370,000 disabled people, will be slashed. This has led to fears that these cuts will push thousands into poverty, especially those unable to find work.
What makes matters worse is the unpredictable nature of global events. While the UK scrambles to balance its budget, a potential trade war with the United States, spearheaded by President Trump, could throw everything into chaos. Reeves has been evasive when questioned about potential concessions to avoid tariffs, which could mean further sacrifices for ordinary people in exchange for appeasing tech giants.
Although Reeves insists that these fiscal moves aren’t a return to austerity, the optics suggest otherwise. Labour may be increasing public spending in real terms, but the cuts are far deeper than anticipated, leaving the public feeling that promises of improvement are slipping away.
Research from think tank More in Common paints a grim picture, with more than half of Britons believing the country is either heading back into austerity or never truly left it. People are growing disillusioned, fearing that no matter who’s in charge, nothing will change for the better. The cost of living crisis continues to devastate many, and a staggering 70% of the population doubts the government’s ability to improve their lives.
For Labour, the challenge is clear. The party’s poll lead has diminished, now neck and neck with the Conservatives, while new political forces like the Reform party are surging ahead. The promise of change now sounds hollow to many, as voters grow increasingly cynical about government action—or lack thereof.
Reeves’ insistence on following fiscal rules and avoiding excessive borrowing might sound sensible from an economic standpoint, but for those on the receiving end of cuts, it feels like a cold, bureaucratic response to a very real human crisis. The fear is that the Labour Party risks becoming yet another government of “more of the same,” unable to break free from the cycles of austerity and stagnation.
The real test will come in the autumn, when Reeves faces the critical decision of whether to raise taxes to fund the nation’s needs. Labour MPs are hopeful that growth—perhaps spurred by a growing defense industry or better ties with Europe—could provide a glimmer of hope. However, the risk remains that the next few months could be consumed by tense speculation over potential tax hikes and further cuts, deepening the pessimism among voters and eroding Labour’s message of change.
If Labour can’t deliver tangible improvements soon, it risks becoming the party that promised transformation, only to settle into the same patterns of fiscal restraint and austerity that have failed so many in the past.
