top of page
Search

The GDP trap: why Starmer cannot change what he will not question.

  • The Wilberforce Society Cambridge
  • 12 minutes ago
  • 7 min read

Written by Billy Gilbey

Edited by Bhing Turongpun

The core of Starmer’s government can be found in the Labour Party’s 2024 manifesto. The front-cover contains only a picture of Starmer and the word “change”. More precisely, change for Starmer is the recovery of “two fundamental beliefs"[1] - “first, that politics should be driven by a sense of service"[2], and secondly that Britain must “respect your contribution and give you a fair chance."[3]


Workers’ ‘fair chance’, the manifesto claims, “requires an enduring partnership with business to deliver the economic growth we need."[4] It is therefore no surprise that the first of five missions, and priority of government, is to “to kickstart economic growth"[5], and in so doing “secure the highest sustained growth in the G7"[6]. For Starmer, therefore, change means a return to fair working conditions and remuneration, and this is realised through growing the pie of GDP.


Recent difficulties in governing stem from this mistaken linking of ‘change’ and growth as measured in GDP. This perception fails to note that change and growth are in practice mutually exclusive: a focus on GDP growth undermines change due to metric-capture. As we so fervently chase improvements according to the metric, political actions are ruled out as incompatible with success (growth) in GDP terms, thus the incentives of GDP growth narrow the policy menu for change. Moreover, venerating the metric contributes to its depoliticisation as we fail to see how the metric is structurally flawed, and incompatible with meaningful change.


This means at the core of the Starmer project is either a logical or semantic problem. It is a logical issue if we believe that meaningful change is delivered through GDP growth. Alternatively, and more likely, it could be a semantic issue: whilst much of the public read change in a radical tone, Starmer may have intended it in a shallower form, synonymous with ‘improvement’ within the system.


Regardless of Starmer’s original intention, Labour’s polling, the rise of Reform and the Greens mean Starmer must now think of ‘change’ in radical terms and thus tackle the issue as a logical one. To do this, Starmer must put politics before GDP. In putting politics first, he will have to articulate who he stands for, what society he wants to create, and how the economy fits into this picture. This article showcases how this is possible, and why it is the best chance of resuscitating the Labour government.


How GDP produces a limited conception of the economy:


Gross Domestic Product had strengths. It was developed by Simon Kuznets in the 1930s and the context of the Great Depression and recovery. It aggregated data on domestic economic activity to work out the monetary value of all goods and services produced within an economy. This served as a useful barometer of economic activity, and thus as a marker of economic recovery for politicians.


The danger comes in confusing GDP with the entirety of the economy. GDP only illuminates the paid transactions and interactions, and in so doing omits the care economy; “the provisions of social and material care"[7]. The economy therefore has two constituent parts: the ‘organic’ interactions as in the care economy, and paid ‘transactions’ as in the market. It is important to remember not all goods and services are paid for and covered under ‘transactions’, some operate in ‘organic’ settings of familiarity and sociability. GDP therefore only tells us part of the story, but the political salience of the indicator constructs a particular view of the economy as paid transactions only.


Starmer sets himself up for failure by making this indicator the end goal of his government. Not only does his rhetoric depoliticise the indicator, making it appear objective and sound, but it also reifies a certain reading of the economy as only paid transactions, thereby overlooking the care economy.


This particular view is gendered. Since all indicators are built upon assumptions about how the world works, it is not surprising that in the context of its 20th century formation that it omits roles traditionally done by women from calculations. GDP does not capture unpaid domestic work or caring roles. GDP therefore serves as a “statistical procedure [that] serve[s] to legitimize and universalize certain power relations"[8] implying the economy is the domain of men and entrenching gendered roles into the economy (Tickner, 1989). Seeking change through GDP growth thus means a deepening of a gendered society.


Prioritising this view of the economy undermines reform:


Change through GDP can even be seen as a contradiction in terms when considering the perverse incentives it generates. Excessive prioritisation on the transactional section of the economy comes at the cost of our social and ecological environments. If change is seen to undermine GDP growth it is dismissed, and therefore Starmer is trapped within the straitjacket of economy-as-GDP.


At the same time, however, people are clearly discontent with the status quo. The leading parties in the Gorton and Denton by-election, the Greens and Reform, and the weak polling of Labour and Conservatives are indicative of the desire for change, and a deep disdain for the status quo. This is not a flash in the pan sentiment: Brexit, Trump, the rise of populism are all evidence of people wanting a change from contemporary systems, what John Hopkin calls ‘anti-system politics’[9] against market liberalism.


In this context, focusing on GDP growth means reifying a conception of the economy that creates the very conditions that people want to break away from. Measures to reset the balance between organic and transactional sectors of the economy, such as four day working weeks, are instantly dismissed due to indicator capture. Starmer’s project to deliver change is thus trapped by his pursuit of growth in GDP terms. No strategic reset can resolve this tension.



What GDP growth even means:


Some may counter my argument by centering economic stagnation as what people want to break with, not economy-as-GDP. They would do this under the belief that improvements in lived experiences flow from GDP growth since a larger pie means better funding for public services, more money for government investments, and a greater array of meaningful jobs.


This assumes improvements in GDP growth are possible, and that amidst global conflict and uncertainty, Starmer has the levers at his disposal to make a difference. The Office of National Statistics quantify the reality of this economic malaise: “GDP is estimated to have increased by 1.3% annually in 2025, following growth of 1.1% in 2024"[10]. So even if my diagnosis is wrong, the alternative of reviving the economy in GDP terms is not a realistic one.


Moreover, GDP growth is not felt equally by everyone. For example, in 2022 the British GDP grew relatively strongly at 2.8% as part of recovery from the economic shut down induced by Covid. In spite of this, the wages of the poorest 14 million people fell by 7.5% versus the richest fifth’s wages increasing by 7.8%[11]. Therefore, it is important to go beyond the measure and recognize how people feel, and people do not feel GDP growth equally.


To summarise, Starmer’s fixation on change through GDP growth renders him trapped within the confines of the economy as imagined, and ironically unable to change people’s lived experiences. Focusing on the economy-as-is is backing the wrong horse, and undermines changes that liberates people.


What the UK must do: step into the realm of politics.


Starmer must drop the fixation on GDP as an end and reframe it as just one indicator amongst many. In displacing the ‘northern star’ of GDP growth, Starmer must then articulate who he stands for, and what society he wants to create. In this process Starmer would resolve the deepest crisis of his Premiership: what he stands for.


Dismissing this move as unfeasible is to remain trapped in the “simulation of our own making”. Starmer defended pursuing GDP growth due to its spillover effects, most notably funding for public services from tax revenues, meaningful jobs, and improved living standards. The crucial mistake is in overlooking how these things are better pursued in ways that run against GDP growth. Focusing seriously on improving organic dimensions of the economy actually would help improve living standards, public services and meaningful jobs in a much more effective, fulfilling and just way.


Let’s take health for example. We can develop the best hospitals and medicine in the world through increased funding and research. This would not, however, stop chronic illnesses from overworking, nor may it solve the growing mental health crisis. Moreover, what’s the opportunity costs lost in these economic gains? Take the four-day week as one policy area, what are the health benefits from more free time for people to look after one another.


To conclude, Starmer must go beyond GDP. Since it is not a neutral indicator, it constructs the economy in more gendered terms, as well as transactional ways of doing things. Instead of GDP, Starmer must repoliticise the economy: who is it for, what function does it serve, and what areas of society does it cover. In asking these questions, contemporary distinctions between organic and transactional settings are problematised, questions of social obligations and duties are raised, and deep societal transformation is unlocked.



Bibliography:


[1] Labour Party (2024) Change: Labour Party Manifesto 2024. London: Labour Party.

[2] Ibid,

[3] Ibid,

[4] Ibid,

[5] Ibid,

[6] Ibid.

[7] Jackson, T. (2025) The Care Economy, p. 36 Cambridge: Polity Press.

[8] Tickner, J.A. (1989) Gendering a discipline: Some feminist methodological contributions to international relations. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279951910_Gendering_a_Discipline_Some_Feminist_Methodological_Contributions_to_International_Relations (Accessed: 26 February 2026).

[9] Hopkin, J. (2020) Anti-system politics: The crisis of market liberalism in rich democracies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

[10] Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2026) GDP first quarterly estimate, UK: October to December 2025. Statistical bulletin. Released 12 February 2026. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/gdpfirstquarterlyestimateuk/octobertodecember2025

[11] D. Clark and 25, F. (2026) UK GDP 2025, Statista. 

Parrique, T. (2022) Sabotaging GDP. [Blog] Available at: https://timotheeparrique.com/sabotaging-gdp/

Tickner, J.A. (1989) 'Gendering a Discipline: Some Feminist Methodological Contributions to International Relations', Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society,

Wilberforce Society (2025) Beyond GDP: The Unhappiness Pandemic in the Global West. Available at: https://www.thewilberforcesociety.co.uk/post/degrowth-a-path-to-prosperity-in-the-climate-crisis

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page