Bringing Back 'Hard Work and Merit' could fix Labour's Problems

It is clear that Keir Starmer’s Labour government has had no political honeymoon since entering office in mid-2024. In the run-up to the general election, Labour’s manifesto featured the word “Change” on its cover, presenting the party as a vehicle for national renewal after fourteen years of Conservative rule. The document offered the electorate a promise of stability and competence, pledging to restore funding to public services that had been strained during the austerity era.

Beyond this broad commitment, however, the programme was relatively cautious. In many respects it did exactly what it needed to do to secure electoral victory: it reassured voters that Labour would simply govern better than the last lot. Yet it is precisely here that the Prime Minister’s political difficulties began.

Labour returned to power with a parliamentary majority exceeding 400 seats, one of the largest in modern British political history. However, this overwhelming majority was secured on just over a third of the popular vote. Critics quickly described the result as a “loveless landslide,” arguing that the election outcome reflected widespread exhaustion with the previous Conservative government rather than deep enthusiasm for Labour’s programme.

In practice, this dynamic has created a paradox at the heart of Starmer’s premiership. Despite possessing a commanding majority in the House of Commons, the government’s political mandate has often appeared fragile. Within Labour’s own parliamentary party there has been growing recognition that the government has struggled to articulate a broader direction for the country. The concept of “Starmerism” remains purposefully undefined, unlike that of Blairism, or Thatcherism.

Unfortunately, a strategy built around technocratic competence has struggled to resonate with voters. By March 2026, Labour’s national polling numbers have fallen significantly, with some surveys placing the party's popularity rating as low as sixteen percent. The government has also lost several high-profile by-elections since assuming office. Meanwhile, Starmer’s personal approval ratings have deteriorated sharply, with net favourability scores reaching approximately –57, placing him among the least popular leaders in the Western world.

Yet it would be inaccurate to suggest that the government has failed to deliver substantive policy achievements. In fact, the legislative record of the first two years contains a number of reforms that would have been considered highly significant in previous parliamentary cycles. Among these are:

• The Employment Rights Act 2025, introducing major protections for workers
• The Renters’ Rights Act, strengthening tenant security and ending no-fault evictions
• Six million additional NHS appointments delivered as part of the health service recovery programme
• Nationalisation of the rail network, bringing passenger services back into public ownership
• Removal of the two-child benefit cap, a major anti-poverty reform
• Expansion of free childcare for working families
• New funding initiatives for local communities and regional development
• The Best Start programme, a modernised successor to Sure Start family centres

Within the Labour Party, the prevailing view among many MPs and activists is that the government’s central problem is simply one of communication. According to this argument, the administration has already delivered meaningful reforms and merely needs to promote them more effectively to the public. As a Labour Party member who has knocked on doors, spoken with voters on social media, and engaged regularly with my local constituency party, I find myself only partially convinced by this explanation.

For some voters, highlighting these achievements may indeed be persuasive; Labour needs to make its own case as the media evidently wont. However, this approach alone struggles to create a broader organising idea that the population as a whole can rally behind. Successful political projects tend to rest on a unifying principle that gives meaning to individual reforms. Such a principle does not require rigid ideological dogma, nor does it demand that a government pursue a narrow doctrinal agenda.

If I were Labour's communications strategist, I would anchor the entire programme of government around a single organising principle: “Bring Back Hard Work and Merit”. The next section outlines how that vision could be articulated.

How Can Labour "Bring Back Hard Work and Merit"?

Politically

Firstly, it is difficult not to view Labour’s attempts to frame the economic debate around the cost of living as a misfire. During the election campaign and ever since, Starmer and Reeves have focused on "Growth" in the economy, a strategy that led to the collapse of public support for Joe Biden in the United States. As a starting point, “Bring Back Hard Work and Merit” moves away from narrow measures of economic success, such as GDP growth or central bank adjustments to interest rates. Instead, it adopts a multilateral approach that speaks directly to the lived economic concerns of working people.

The phrase itself is not overtly populist in messaging, as it does not say "Britain is Broken" like Nigel Farage's Reform UK; rather, it shows recognition that work isn't paying for ordinary people, and along with growth, they will build a productive society that fixes the cost-of living crisis. This approach would resonate with aspiring homeowners, working families, renters, and those in insecure employment.

This could be politically beneficial for the government as the phrasing prioritises the fruits of one's Labour, which harks back to the parties traditional roots and would help relitigate their relationship with Trade Union movement. Starmer's Labour have received criticism from Union bosses, with general secretary of Unite the Union Sharon Graham recently claiming that if the Labour Party were invented now, the Unions would not be affiliated with it. Making a strong commitment to wages to boost productivity might be enough to soften this unrest.

Not only this, Labour would reclaim the political centre ground by appropriating a phrase traditionally associated with Conservative rhetoric. The language of “hard work and merit” has long been used to defend market capitalism, yet the realities of modern neoliberal economics increasingly contradict that claim. By redefining merit in terms of contribution to society rather than inherited wealth or asset ownership, Labour could turn a traditional Tory slogan into a critique of the very system they helped construct. In doing so, it becomes far harder for the Conservatives or Reform to defend policies that prevent people from genuinely thriving through their own effort and ability in accordance to their needs.

Reinforce how the last 2 Years of "Fixing the Foundations" ties in with this broader vision!

As mentioned above, Labour have diagnosed their main issue as not focusing on their successes more, both in the news and on the doorstep. Framed correctly, this approach can serve as the natural springboard to a broader political project centred on restoring the link between hard work, merit, and economic reward.

The government has repeatedly described its first two years in office as “fixing the foundations” of the country after more than a decade of institutional strain. For a society to meaningfully reward effort, it must first rebuild the public services, infrastructure and economic capacity that allow individuals to participate fully in the economy. The work undertaken in these early years can therefore be presented not as an end in itself, but as the platform from which a more meritocratic economy can be constructed.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the government’s investment in the National Health Service. By delivering millions of additional NHS appointments and reducing waiting lists through sustained tax-and-spend investment, the government can demonstrate that rebuilding public services is about enabling people to live healthy, productive lives. A functioning health system is not simply a social good; it ensures that people are able to enter the workforce and contribute their skills and labour.

Industrial policy provides another clear example. The decision to protect British steel safeguarded thousands of skilled jobs and preserved a strategically important industry. Similarly, defence manufacturing projects such as frigate construction for Norway signal a renewed commitment to rebuilding Britain’s industrial capacity, prioritising productive manufacturing employment rather than relying exclusively on a service-led economy. This could be also used as an argument of building up national resource wealth to help shield the nation better from global financial shocks.

Planning reform can also be linked directly to this narrative. By reforming the planning system and accelerating housebuilding, the government can argue that it is constructing a Britain fit for younger generations, a country where hard work offers a realistic pathway to economic security.

Finally, both the Employment Rights Act and the Renters’ Rights Act reinforce this principle. Stronger employment protections ensure that workers are treated fairly and properly compensated for their labour, while tenant protections ensure that those earning income through property assets cannot unfairly exploit those whose livelihoods depend on their work.

A Meritocratic Vision for Britain!

Restoring Merit to the Economy by Mitigating Chance

If Labour is serious about bringing back hard work and merit, it must first confront an uncomfortable truth about modern Britain: the country increasingly rewards inheritance, and asset accumulation more than effort.

Inheritocracy: It’s Time to Talk About the Bank of Mum and Dad by Eliza Filby argues that life chances are increasingly determined by whether individuals can rely on family wealth rather than their own income or achievements. Access to the “Bank of Mum and Dad” now shapes major life milestones such as university education, childcare support and home ownership. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has similarly argued that Britain faces a structural challenge: policy must find ways “to make inheritance matter less” if social mobility is to improve.

A society where wealth passed down through generations matters more than work is not a meritocracy; it is an inheritocracy. If Labour want to rebuild a country where effort is rewarded, then tax and economic policy must begin to tilt the balance back toward earned income rather than passive wealth. That means reforming the tax system so that work is valued more than unearned gains, closing loopholes that favour asset ownership over labour, and investing in education, skills and opportunity so that prosperity is something people can build for themselves. Linking fiscal policy to a clear long-term economic strategy would also reassure financial markets, reducing the risk that government borrowing costs become politically destabilising.

Lower Bills for Workers to unlock spending power!

Rebuilding meritocracy also requires tackling the everyday cost pressures facing working people. Hard work should allow people not just to survive, but to build fulfilling lives: to start families, go out with friends, pursue hobbies, and participate in their local economies. When the majority of household income disappears into rent, energy bills and utilities, the connection between effort and reward breaks down.

This is why a Labour government serious about merit must go further in restructuring Britain’s utility markets, framing them as natural manopolies that should be shielded from external shocks. Last year, the government scrapped Ofwat, and promised a new method of regulating water, claiming that all nationalisation methods would amount to a bill of £100bn, something the UK simply cannot afford. While this is a small step in the right direction, it is anti-meritocratic for water companies to increase people's bills for the privilege of dumping sewage into waterways like Mr Burns-style corporate villains.

Energy markets also illustrate how household costs are increasingly disconnected from the effort people put into earning their income; instead, they depend upon foreign oil and gas, which have been subject to market shocks such as Trump's war with Iran and Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine. Using this, along with the narrative of job creation, the government must expand the operations of GB Energy, the public company set up to ensure the green transition goes ahead, and use this to compete with the current private energy oligopoly.

Housing and the End of the Asset Economy

Housing represents perhaps the clearest example of how Britain’s economy has drifted away from rewarding work. The rise of buy-to-let landlordism, the persistence of the archaic leasehold system, and decades of underinvestment in social housing have created a housing system in which wealth derived from property grows far faster than wages. Since the introduction of the Right-to-Buy scheme in 1980, more than 2 million social homes have been sold in England, dramatically shrinking the stock of affordable housing.

At the same time, the number of households living in social housing has fallen sharply, with around 1.4 million fewer households in social housing than in 1980, forcing many families into the more expensive private rented sector. Meanwhile, the private rental market has increasingly absorbed homes that were once publicly owned: research suggests around 41% of former council homes sold under Right-to-Buy are now owned by private landlords and rented out at market rates.

This transformation has coincided with a growing reliance on family wealth in order to access home ownership. Recent surveys show that over half of first-time buyers receive financial assistance from their parents, with the average contribution exceeding £55,000. In some surveys, as many as 96% of first-time buyers reported receiving some form of financial help for their deposit, and around 80% had to move back in with parents to save for one.

Even policies that were once seen as meritocratic have produced unintended consequences. Margaret Thatcher’s Right-to-Buy scheme was originally framed as a pathway to ownership for working families. Yet because council homes were rarely replaced, local authorities have lost millions of properties to the private sector over time, leaving many young families trapped in expensive private renting. Rebuilding council housing at scale would restore a genuine ladder of opportunity. Stable social housing gives tenants security, allows them to save, and offers a clear pathway into ownership. It also gives local authorities assets that generate revenue for public services and maintain housing stock for future generations. In this sense, expanding council housing is not anti-aspiration. It is one of the most powerful ways to make aspiration real again.

Welfare Reform That Rewards Potential

If the public can trust a government with welfare reform, they should be able to trust a Labour government to do it in a way that treats people with the dignity all citizens deserve. Unfortunately, that story was lacking when the former Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall attempted to make sweeping reforms to the welfare system, where their own figures showed would result in disabled people being plunged into poverty. Understandably, many backbench Labour MPs rebelled against the governments plans, significantly denting the mandate of the leadership.

But acknowledging the need for compassion does not mean ignoring structural challenges. Millions of people remaining outside the labour market is not sustainable; even the more radical socialists will tell you that! Perhaps if the government had clearly articulated a broader national direction, restoring meritocracy, the rebellion may have been smaller.

The New Labour governments under Tony Blair illustrate the importance of narrative clarity in governing. Despite frequent backbench rebellions, with figures such as Jeremy Corbyn often voting against the government, legislation rarely failed. This was because New Labour operated within a clear governing project that defined the direction of reform.

One of Labour's solutions in their Welfare Bill was to restrict access to under 21's accessing universal credit, to address the issue of 1 million young people who're not in education, employment or training (NEETS). A useful illustration of how Labour misread this situation comes from an unexpected source.

Shaun Ryder, of the band Happy Mondays, once remarked that without the welfare state there would have been no Happy Mondays. The modest support available to him as a young man allowed him the time to develop his music, which in turn contributed to Manchester’s globally influential music scene and the city’s modern cultural economy. If we adopt the Scandinavian approach, which has the highest number of emerging unicorn companies outside of California, issuing incentives like Swedens Start-Up Grants or Denmark's "Flexicurity", the government can better identify young talent and stimulate growth.

It is also important to recognise that most welfare recipients are not disconnected from work at all. Around 33% of people receiving Universal Credit are already employed, and the majority of those receiving child benefit are also in work. In many cases, the welfare system is effectively subsidising employers who pay wages too low to support families. This is not meritocratic for workers, and it is not efficient for businesses. In this way, welfare reform can complement the broader goal of restoring merit: ensuring that work genuinely pays, while also ensuring that those with ambition, talent or creativity have the support they need to succeed.

Britain cannot remain a society where the rewards of economic life are determined by inherited wealth, property ownership and passive assets. A government serious about rebuilding the country must restore the link between effort and reward. If Labour can organise its programme around the simple idea that hard work and merit should once again determine life chances, it will not merely communicate its policies more effectively, it will redefine the purpose of government itself.

How I Escaped the Politics I was born into...

Told to stay quiet, surrounded by prejudice, I was almost swallowed by far-right politics. This is how I broke the mould and forged a political identity of my own.

JBE PoliticsJacob Barclay-Evans