Inequality is not an unfortunate side effect of the modern political and economic turmoil gripping Western democracies – it is the root cause. That is the central argument advanced by Wes Streeting, the Labour MP for Ilford North and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in a sharp rebuke of Tony Blair’s recent intervention on the future of British politics. While Streeting concedes that the former prime minister is correct to identify the scale of the historic rupture facing the country – driven by technological revolution, geopolitical instability and economic insecurity – he argues that Blair’s analysis fatally overlooks the defining fracture of the age: the economic, social and democratic divide running through modern Britain.
Streeting’s argument is that when people are told Britain is succeeding while they cannot afford a home, and that opportunity exists even though their children face lower living standards than their parents enjoyed, the gap between rhetoric and reality becomes politically explosive. The resentment that follows does not remain homeless for long. Across Europe and North America, that anger increasingly fuels nationalism, protectionism and the politics of grievance. The populist right thrives not because people are irrational, Streeting writes, but because too many feel abandoned by economic systems that appear to work for everyone except them.
Inequality: The Root of Political Crisis
The evidence of that fracture is stark. Recent data shows that nearly half of UK adults experience financial insecurity, with around 18.5 million people in Great Britain feeling economically insecure – a figure higher than the proportion in poverty. This insecurity is not isolated; it forms part of a broader “multi-stress” situation in which financial, health and housing insecurities are increasingly experienced simultaneously by millions of adults, a condition linked to austerity-era policies, a stretched welfare system and the erosion of public services. Mid-life adults aged 35 to 59 are identified as a particularly economically insecure and electorally volatile group, making them a key demographic in the shifting political landscape.
Streeting offers concrete examples of the unfairness that drives this resentment. A nurse paying back student debt sees a greater proportion of their income taxed than landlords collecting gains from rising property values. People in Britain’s poorest communities fall into ill health nearly two decades earlier than those in the wealthiest. Most private wealth is now inherited rather than earned. The Gini coefficient for income inequality in the UK stood at 33 per cent before housing costs and 37 per cent after housing costs in 2024/25, official figures show, indicating persistent income disparities that regional economic divides only deepen. Former industrial and mining heartlands continue to face long-term economic disadvantage and decline, hampering social mobility and limiting access to education, high-skilled jobs and training for young people in those areas.
Streeting is explicit in his diagnosis: when people believe the rules no longer reward effort fairly, resentment grows. The false promise offered by the populist right – close the borders, blame outsiders, retreat from change and somehow recover a lost past – is seductive precisely because too many people feel abandoned by systems that appear to work for everyone except them.
The AI Revolution: Promise and Peril
Streeting acknowledges that Blair is right about one thing: the AI revolution is happening whether we approve of it or not. Extraordinary breakthroughs could extend healthy lives and unlock economic growth, but alongside that promise comes profound danger: labour market disruption, technological unemployment, and unprecedented concentrations of wealth, data and power. The real question, Streeting argues, is whether this new industrial revolution will be governed in the interests of the many or captured by the privileged few.
Research underscores the urgency of that question. Studies indicate that AI is already resulting in net job losses in the UK, with British companies reporting a higher rate of job reduction due to AI compared to other leading economies. The impact is particularly concerning for early-career jobs and younger workers, with a significant portion of the workforce worried about displacement. While AI can boost productivity, its adoption risks exacerbating existing labour market inequalities, disproportionately affecting younger, lower-skilled, female and part-time workers. The UK’s governance of AI, which currently relies on existing legal frameworks such as the Equality Act 2010 rather than AI-specific statutes, is seen as risking further entrenchment of these inequalities, leading to job precarity, financial insecurity and unequal access to opportunities. Amnesty International has reported that the digitisation of welfare schemes is leading to the systematic exclusion of people with disabilities and marginalised groups, compounding existing disadvantages.
Blair’s own vision, articulated in a recent “10-point plan,” calls for reorganising the entire state around the opportunities and risks of AI, slashing obstacles to business growth, prioritising cheaper energy – including North Sea oil and gas – for competitiveness, and establishing partnerships for apprenticeships and training. He argues that embracing AI is crucial for economic prosperity and social justice. But Streeting counters that policy is not made in a valueless vacuum, and that the centre-left cannot answer populism merely with managerial competence or technological optimism.
Labour’s Path Forward: Dynamism and Fairness
Streeting’s prescription for Labour is clear: the party must combine dynamism with fairness, wealth creation with wealth distribution, enterprise with solidarity, ambition with security. The centre-left’s task is not simply to speak the language of markets more fluently than the Conservatives, but to ensure markets serve society rather than dominate it. That means building an education and skills system capable of preparing people for a radically changing labour market; tipping the balance of taxation away from work towards wealth; ensuring democratic sovereignty over data and AI infrastructure; and preventing monopolistic concentrations of power by global tech corporations. Above all, Streeting argues, economic growth without social justice is ultimately unsustainable.
This domestic agenda is matched by a foreign policy that recognises the fragmentation of the international order. The institutions built after 1945 increasingly struggle to regulate a world defined by multinational technology firms, climate pressures and resurgent authoritarianism. Streeting insists that Britain must stand firmly with democratic allies, and that the alliance with the US remains indispensable and rooted in deep historical ties. But Atlanticism cannot mean automatic subservience: when US presidents flirt with authoritarian leaders, undermine international law or pursue reckless military adventurism, Britain must have the confidence to act independently – a lesson learned at terrible cost in Iraq.
Britain’s long-term future lies in Europe, Streeting argues, but that does not mean pretending the politics of rejoining the EU are simple or immediate. Honesty matters, and a new special relationship with Europe based on economic cooperation, security partnership and shared values is needed. Labour’s current policy is to “reset” the relationship, pursuing practical agreements such as a veterinary accord to reduce border checks on agri-foods, a mutual recognition agreement for professional qualifications, and an ambitious UK-EU security pact – all without rejoining the single market, customs union or free movement. The post-Brexit trade relationship has introduced considerable friction, with increased customs formalities and paperwork, and some analyses suggest Brexit has negatively impacted the British economy, with exports and imports down compared to remaining in the EU.
Streeting concludes that the Labour party will not secure the country’s future by fighting old factional wars or recycling outdated orthodoxies, nor through technocratic detachment from the lives people actually live. The real dividing line in modern politics is between those who believe the future can still be shaped democratically for the common good, and those content to leave it to markets, monopolies and fate. The answers must be new, but they must also be Labour – and that begins with confronting the inequality that is the true engine of the political crisis unfolding across the Western world.
