From Iron Lady to Iron Fist: How Starmerism Outdoes Thatcherism

In the annals of British politics, few figures have loomed as large as Margaret Thatcher, the 'Iron Lady' who redefined the UK's economic landscape through her staunch commitment to free-market principles and privatisation. Yet, in a twist of political irony, Prime Minister Keir Starmer's tenure has ushered in an era that not only mirrors Thatcher's austerity but, in many respects, surpasses it in severity.

The Thatcher years in the 1980s was marked by a fervent belief in reducing the state's role in the economy. Her policies led to the privatisation of numerous state-owned enterprises, from British Telecom to British Gas. While critics decried these moves as selling off national assets, supporters argued they revitalised a stagnating economy and promoted individual enterprise.

Starmer's approach, dubbed 'Starmerism', has taken austerity to unprecedented levels. Under his leadership, the government has implemented a series of draconian measures that have drawn sharp criticism from both the public and members of his own party.

One of the most contentious policies has been the £5 billion cut to welfare benefits, a move that could see up to 1.2 million people losing their benefits. This decision has sparked significant backlash, with Labour MPs facing anger and frustration from constituents. Critics argue that these cuts unfairly target the most vulnerable in society, contradicting the core principles of the Labour Party.

Perhaps most egregious is the government's decision to scrap winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners. Previously a universal benefit, the payment has been restricted to only those receiving pension credit, effectively excluding millions who relied on this support to heat their homes during the cold months. Critics have warned that this move could lead to increased excess deaths among the elderly, with some estimates suggesting up to 4,000 additional fatalities.

In a bid to project fiscal responsibility, Starmer has also targeted the civil service, announcing plans to cut 10,000 jobs. This move, framed as an effort to streamline government operations, has raised concerns about the erosion of public services and the capacity of the state to effectively serve its citizens.

While Thatcher's policies were openly rooted in free-market ideology, Starmer's cuts have been presented under the guise of necessary fiscal prudence. However, the impact on public services and vulnerable populations suggests a return to austerity measures that many hoped had been consigned to history.

Despite assurances to the contrary, the scale and scope of these cuts have led to accusations that the government is prioritising budgetary constraints over the well-being of its citizens. Which is clearly the case.

In retrospect, Thatcher's era, with all its controversies, at least operated under a clear ideological framework. Starmer's tenure, however, appears to be characterised by a series of punitive measures that lack a coherent vision for the nation's future. The term 'Starmerism' has come to symbolise an era of intensified austerity, where the most vulnerable bear the brunt of fiscal tightening.

As the nation grapples with the consequences of these policies, one can't help but wonder if the Iron Lady's reign was, in comparison, a lesser of two evils.