Sir Keir Starmer's second King's Speech has failed to quell a growing mutiny within the Labour Party, with critics describing the legislative programme as "incrementalism" that "sums up where we have gone wrong". The package of 34 bills and three draft bills includes measures to limit trial by jury, reshape the NHS, and move closer to the EU, but falls short of what many Labour MPs believe is needed to restore voter trust.
One Labour MP said: "Most of this is incrementalism. This sums up where we have gone wrong in the first two years in government. We talk about not going back to the status quo and then propose boosting growth by tweaking the wording of regulators' remits." Harry Quilter-Pinner, head of the Institute for Public Policy Research, called for "much bolder action on the cost of living, including rent controls, alongside longer-term reforms".
The speech included previously announced measures such as an NHS modernisation bill to abolish NHS England, an education bill reforming special educational needs provision, and a courts bill limiting jury trials to reduce backlogs. However, critics argue that some bills do less than they promise, reflecting Starmer's reluctance to embrace trade-offs. A regulating for growth bill gives regulators a mandate to promote growth, but Downing Street insisted this would not weaken safety or environmental protections.
The King's Speech came amid a major policy debate within Labour, prompted by manoeuvrings of potential leadership candidates. The Labour Growth Group, chaired by Chris Curtis, an ally of Wes Streeting, wants a significant rise in capital gains tax to cut national insurance, plus major devolution allowing mayors to tax and spend. The soft-left Tribune group, which favours Andy Burnham as leader, wants public ownership of utilities, particularly Thames Water, and changes to fiscal rules to allow more borrowing after the next election.
Some critics argue the party should have held these policy discussions before the election. Curtis told a Westminster event: "We weren't discussing ideas for how we were to run the country, and we didn't develop a good enough or sufficient plan for government." Starmer's allies counter that the ideas from competing factions are not very different from current government policy.
