Austerity, that cruel set of economic policies designed to slash the welfare state, is being reanimated throughout the United Kingdom. But this time, unlike during the last austere period, it’s being imposed by a Labour government with the audacity to claim, albeit with its fingers crossed behind its back, that it represents the interests of the working class. That is quite obviously bollocks, and it always seemed likely from the beginning that some manner of austerity would be implemented by Keir Starmer’s Labour Party, but the depths of depravity to which they’ve so quickly sunk, after less than a year in power, and while holding an overwhelming parliamentary majority, has been genuinely quite shocking to behold. But, here it is: they really are attacking some of the most vulnerable people in the country.
Since taking power, Labour has bet everything on the U.K. economy achieving growth, which would, necessarily, generate a greater pool of taxes from which to draw and spend on chronically underfunded areas like public healthcare. The party was hoping for a growth rate of 2% throughout 2025, despite the fact that, as early as June last year, economists were warning that a 2% target was extremely optimistic. This is a world of ecological collapse, war, and Donald Trump, and, try as they might, Labour’s leaders can’t just manifest growth into being by incessantly reciting the term every fucking opportunity they get. But they gambled on it nonetheless, leaving their entire project for governance open to factors well beyond their control, and, sure enough, their plan has failed in less than a year. Growth projections have been downgraded to a measly 1 percent, and, therefore, Labour’s plans for much-needed increases to social spending don’t work.
Labour’s failure was confirmed last week when Rachel Reeves, the U.K.’s chancellor, delivered her “spring statement,” which, in effect, is a government budget cloaked in good old British euphemism. She confirmed what the public had feared was coming: welfare for disabled people will be cut. Reeves and her party are literally attempting to frame the U.K.’s economic woes as the fault of disabled people, who, they imply, are bleeding the state dry because they’re too lazy to get a job. This attitude is not especially unusual within British elite discourse, which has long demonized people unable to work, but it is still shocking to see just how twisted Labour’s leaders have become on this issue.
Disability welfare claimants already face tremendous hostility in the U.K., and Labour’s actions will make life harder. There is, according to a recent investigation by The i Paper, a culture of trying to “catch people out” when benefit claims are assessed, which, according to whistleblowers, has meant applicants have been judged capable of cooking their own meals, despite the fact that, in reality, they were eating cold beans from a can. The report also mentioned one man, who is missing three limbs, expressing that he felt compelled to constantly prove to assessors that his arm and two legs had not, at any stage, “grown back.”
According to the government’s own figures, 250,000 more people will be driven into poverty as a result of these cuts to welfare. A fifth of them are children. But, even if we place aside the obvious cruelty of this, it does not, in any meaningful sense, help the British economy. The cuts will reportedly save the government about £5 billion ($6.5 billion), but, even if this was all pumped into the underfunded National Health Service (NHS), it wouldn’t go very far. Taking welfare away from people who are sick and disabled will, inevitably, put extra pressure on the health service, as some of those people will find they are less able to manage their conditions and their mental health. They may drop out of the workforce entirely and even end up in hospital. Is that, really, what the NHS needs?
None of this is inevitable. This is not the only option on the table, but Labour refuses to borrow more money to invest in public services, and, crucially, it refuses to implement sufficient wealth taxes on the very richest people in the country, despite overwhelming public support for it. Campaigners are now calling for a one-off 2.5 percent tax on assets worth over £10 million, which would, according to Greenpeace, raise about £36 billion. This would barely be noticeable to those subjected to it, though critics say such a scheme would be difficult to implement and may lead to wealthy people abandoning the country, but surely such issues are worth trying to work through, especially for a political party claiming to represent the working class?
But, Labour doesn’t really represent workers and, thus, refuses to entertain the prospect. It instead focuses its attention on the poor and the disabled, who, unlike millionaires, aren’t likely to abandon ship at the first sign of trouble by moving to a tax haven—many of which, incidentally, are British territories. The U.K. is, according to the Tax Justice Network, “by far the world’s greatest enabler of corporate tax avoidance,” so that, too, should be a problem for Labour to consider. But, no. It would rather destroy the welfare state it helped create.
It’s not all austerity in Britain, though. There is one sector of the economy which looks set for a boost: and that, invariably, is defense. As pathetic men are wont to, Starmer is enjoying the opportunity to talk tough and act the strongman, so he’s begun deploying hawkish rhetoric when he can, which, predictably, has induced swampy gushing among centrist media types. And, in a move which must have been designed, at least partly, to please Donald Trump, Starmer also cut the U.K.’s commitments to providing foreign aid, redirecting those sums directly into the defense budget. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be suspicious of the global aid system, but Starmer’s panicked actions are not remotely aimed at addressing those problems. It is posturing, and it will harm people—as will his commitment to building up a war machine.
Weak efforts have been made to frame the increase in military spending as a way to boost the economy, but, really, only a tiny proportion of jobs are supported by military spending in the U.K. today, and nobody really buys the shtick. But a more compelling argument for defense spending, certainly, is that the U.K. needs to protect itself from Russia. While Russia is extremely unlikely to pose a direct threat to Britain, defense capabilities clearly do need to be built up, and this is an argument which can, convincingly enough, be presented by Starmer as a matter of protecting the country’s sovereignty. But, look closely enough at the British military as it is currently shaped today, and one wonders if it’s really designed with the U.K.’s best interests in mind.
So much of the U.K.’s defense spending is directed towards projecting power around the world—as a direct extension of the U.S. military. That’s why tens of thousands of British troops helped the U.S. invade Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s why the U.K. today spends billions on maintaining a nuclear program believed, by some, to be unusable without U.S. authorization, and which, in any case, has failed its last two tests. It’s why the U.K. has sent, at great expense, aircraft carriers all the way out to the Indo-Pacific, far from Europe and the Russian menace. It’s why the Royal Air Force (RAF) has reportedly flown more than 500 surveillance flights around Gaza since December 2023, raising concerns about its complicity in Israel’s genocidal campaign there. None of that is about defending the U.K., but, rather, is about serving the American empire.
If Starmer really cared about the U.K.’s security, he would stop saber-rattling Putin. He would start valuing diplomacy and begin pursuing strategic defensive policies that actually prepare the U.K. for the stormy future that’s ahead, and that, inevitably, would have to include taking climate breakdown seriously, which he clearly does not at present. He would aim to stop pissing away defense money on the U.S.’s follies, and he would actually use it responsibly. But, despite what his grey persona implies, Starmer is not a responsible leader. He is driving his country deeper into crisis, forcing vulnerable people to the brink of ruin, and, at the same time, fueling a war machine he is wholly unequipped to manage. His view of the world is delusional, and it is dangerous. The poor and the disabled among his countryfolk are about to find that out.
GET SPLINTER RIGHT IN YOUR INBOX
The Truth Hurts
