These legacies manifest themselves often in more insidious ways, as economic inequities bolster the existing political divides in the United Kingdom and United States. Austerity measures hurt poor people the most. Wealthier classes, particularly as has been the case under Labour governance in the UK, thrive. Rising inequality breeds incalculable resentment from the marginalized. It foments a toxic atmosphere of scapegoating, wherein marginalized communities are increasingly made the focus of popular resentment.
The Labour Party, under the watch of energetic leaders, such as our own Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, going strong in opposition. Critics highlight its ties to rich benefactors and its reputation for failing to address systemic inequality. As Labour caters to wealthy donors and navigates pressures from a billionaire media landscape, it risks alienating its core supporters. The implications of this strategy are significant: as economic disparities widen, the party may inadvertently bolster support for radical right movements.
In the UK, their research revealed a chasm between how members of lower and higher socioeconomic classes experienced the pandemic. We’ve seen years of austerity policies punishing the poorest while at the same time extreme wealth accumulation by the rich and upper middle class. This detrimental trend reflects a broader global trend. Since the start of the UN’s sustainable development agenda in 1990, the official number of people living under the poverty line has remained stagnant! Just last year, the wealth of the world’s billionaires increased by another $2 trillion.
In the U.S., millions of Americans are unable to access these valuable benefits. This trend is not unlike most of what we’ve experienced across the country. According to Professor Martin Gilens, “Under most circumstances, the preferences of the vast majority of Americans appear to have essentially no impact on which policies the government does or doesn’t adopt.” This disconnect between federal government actions and public sentiment further fuels the disenfranchisement of economically fragile communities.
The controversy reveals that Labour’s problems run deeper than just identity politics and leadership machinations. Like Hamilton Nolan has famously pointed out, “one party is out to kill, and the other is hoping for its leaders to die.” This mood underscores an urgent need for Labour to rethink its approach to inequality. Whether they can or not will be a critical determinant of both party unity and electoral success.
To explain the rise of rightwing populism, this too is often linked to economic insecurity. In places like Eastern Europe, hit hard by austerity, towns are breeding grounds for radical extremism. Labour’s Backwards Economic Policies and Failure to Act on the Cost of Living Crisis is Making Inequality Worse. This widening chasm sows seeds of vengeance against new seen enemies like immigrants, trans people, scientists, teachers, and even foreign countries like Red Menace China.
Labour’s trajectory as is leads to profoundly troubling questions regarding the party’s long-term survival. With figures like Starmer and Reeves seemingly handing over their base to leaders such as Nigel Farage, concerns mount about whether the party can reclaim its standing among working-class voters. The unwillingness to tackle issues of inequality directly worsens these challenges.
Wealth concentration isn’t only tearing apart our economy — it’s fueling the rise of violent political extremism. Dismantling inequality is one of the best protections our society has against this wave of far-right extremism. As Labour continues to steer through these choppy waters, it is more important than ever that we commit to tackling the drivers of disenfranchisement and inequality. To ignore this is to further put their own electoral fortunes in peril and, more importantly, continue to stoke the fires of division in our society.