King's Speech: is Keir Starmer being too cautious?
The Labour Party set out its plans for its first year in government

Labour has set out its agenda for government in today's King's Speech, putting economic growth and housing targets at the heart of its plans.
It was a speech that was always going to be "short on surprises", said Archie Bland in The Guardian, but it is the first moment for Keir Starmer to "flesh out the detail" of how he "intends to govern".
But while there are many plans laid out in the speech, as one Labour aide told Politico: "Nobody expected FDR, but after 14 years of bad policymaking and poverty on the rise, there is a feeling of 'is that it?'"
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
What did the commentators say?
Today was a "huge moment" for Starmer as it marks the point when his "project in Parliament officially begins", said Laura Kuenssberg at the BBC. There was never an expectation that the plans would "include fireworks" and definitely "no rabbits out of fancy hats". This is purely because the party insist they are "grappling with the tasks government requires them to do" rather than the "options they would choose".
Starmer has "sought to make a virtue of predictability", said Bland, and his approach is in "contrast to the more pyrotechnic approach of recent Tory prime ministers". While the majority of "flagship policies" from the manifesto featured in the King's Speech, there were a number that did not "make the cut", including changes that would limit access to foreign workers and plans to lower the voting age to 16.
Laying down over 35 new bills, Starmer said the government's new programme is aimed at taking the "brakes off Britain" and providing a "foundation stone" to "rebuild". The King's Speech is being looked at as a "blueprint for the scale of his ambition", said Beth Rigby at Sky News, but it is clear that Starmer is taking a position of needing to "fix things" before he can then "look to the future" about what the government "might do next".
The prime minister's "message of change" has been "qualified with a plea for patience", Rigby added, as he tries to "buy time" by talking up the "state of the inheritance" left by the last government. However, with a "big majority and a party hungry for change", there are already "hints" of internal "pressures" for much bolder change.
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
The "cautious approach" does leave Starmer "open to criticism", said Esther Webber in Politico, and the lack of action on the two-child cap on benefits is a key point that a number of MPs are "expected to rebel over". The government insists though that it is trying to "advance an agenda which can actually be delivered".
What next?
Though Labour is enjoying a purple patch of popularity after the recent election, there are fears that a lack of "risk and reform" will scupper it in the long run, said Andy Haldane in the Financial Times.
The "luck will run out, the honeymoon fade", and the "caution that propelled Labour to power" is the "opposite" of what is needed to "promote growth and improve public services". The government requires a "culture shift", he said, one that moves from "safety-ism to dynamism" and to "loosen the centralising grip" on the party.
There are some "political calculations" behind Labour's "conservative opening hand", said Webber. Starmer is hoping that if Labour can "demonstrate an ability to deliver" on policies even if they are "unambitious", it would make it an "uphill battle" for the Tories to "rebuild their reputation for competence".
Richard Windsor is a freelance writer for The Week Digital. He began his journalism career writing about politics and sport while studying at the University of Southampton. He then worked across various football publications before specialising in cycling for almost nine years, covering major races including the Tour de France and interviewing some of the sport’s top riders. He led Cycling Weekly’s digital platforms as editor for seven of those years, helping to transform the publication into the UK’s largest cycling website. He now works as a freelance writer, editor and consultant.
-
5 museum-grade cartoons about Trump's Smithsonian purge
Cartoons Artists take on institutional rebranding, exhibit interpretation, and more
-
Settling the West Bank: a death knell for a Palestine state?
In the Spotlight The reality on the ground is that the annexation of the West Bank is all but a done deal
-
Crossword: August 23, 2025
The Week's daily crossword puzzle
-
Inflation derailed Biden. Is Trump next?
Today's Big Question 'Financial anxiety' rises among voters
-
Jonathan Powell: who is the man behind Keir Starmer's foreign policy?
Today's Big Question Prime minister's national security adviser is a 'world-class operator'
-
Why has the State Department scaled down its stance on human rights?
Today's Big Question The Trump administration has curtailed previous criticisms of human rights violations
-
Why do Dana White and Donald Trump keep pushing for a White House UFC match?
TODAY'S BIG QUESTION The president and the sports mogul each have their own reasons for wanting a White House spectacle
-
Why is Trump attacking Intel's CEO?
Today's Big Question Concerns about Lip-Bu Tan's Chinese connections
-
Who will win the battle for the soul of the Green Party?
An ideological divide is taking root among the environmentalists
-
Will Trump privatize Social Security?
Today's Big Question Bessent calls savings program a 'back door' to privatization
-
How does the EPA plan to invalidate a core scientific finding?
TODAY'S BIG QUESTION Administrator Lee Zeldin says he's 'driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion.' But is his plan to undermine a key Obama-era greenhouse gas emissions policy scientifically sound — or politically feasible?