Analysis of: Reform accused of proposing tax cuts worth £40bn to boost chances in Makerfield byelection – UK politics live
The Guardian | June 15, 2026
TL;DR
UK politics fractures over defence spending, social media bans, and anti-migrant scapegoating as parties compete before a pivotal byelection. The real story: capital's bipartisan consensus on militarism while working-class divisions are stoked through xenophobia.
Analytical Focus:Class Analysis Contradictions Historical Context
This live blog from the Guardian captures a revealing snapshot of British political economy in crisis mode. Three distinct but interconnected threads emerge: escalating defence spending demands backed by cross-party consensus, Reform UK's explicitly xenophobic 'migrant labour levy' designed to create a two-tier workforce, and the social media ban serving as a convenient distraction from material conditions facing workers. The defence debate is particularly instructive. Former Defence Secretary John Healey resigned over inadequate funding, while the Conservative opposition demands 3% of GDP for military spending by 2030—a position Labour appears poised to accept. This bipartisan militarism reflects capital's imperatives in an era of intensifying great-power competition, with both major parties competing to demonstrate their commitment to NATO and 'national security.' The resources at stake are enormous: an additional £28 billion over four years, funds that could transform public services but will instead flow to arms manufacturers. Meanwhile, Reform UK's Robert Jenrick unveiled a policy framework that would institutionalise discrimination against non-British workers through a 'migrant labour levy' while reversing employer National Insurance contributions—but only for British citizens. This naked appeal to working-class xenophobia attempts to redirect legitimate economic grievances away from capital and toward fellow workers. Jenrick's statement that non-working foreign nationals 'obviously should leave' reveals the party's function: dividing the working class along national lines while leaving capitalist relations untouched. The Makerfield byelection looms as a test of whether this strategy can overcome Reform UK's current polling deficit against Labour's Andy Burnham.
Class Dynamics
Actors: British working class (divided along national/ethnic lines), Defence industry capital, Technology corporations (Meta, Google, TikTok), Political class (Labour, Conservative, Reform UK), Migrant workers (EU settled status holders, non-EU workers), Small business owners, Military state apparatus
Beneficiaries: Defence contractors receiving increased military spending, British employers who would receive NICs relief under Reform UK plan, Technology companies whose fundamental business models remain unchallenged, Political establishment maintaining control of debate parameters
Harmed Parties: Migrant workers facing discriminatory levies and deportation threats, Working class facing austerity in public services to fund military expansion, Young people subjected to surveillance infrastructure under social media ban, Workers whose class solidarity is undermined by nationalist division
The political establishment presents a unified front on militarism while manufacturing divisions within the working class. Reform UK explicitly positions British workers against migrant workers, while Labour and Conservatives compete over who can spend more on defence. Technology companies face rhetorical opposition but retain their fundamental power over digital infrastructure. The state mediates between capital's need for cheap labour and electoral demands for immigration restriction.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Defence budget expansion requiring £28bn additional spending, Employer National Insurance contributions as contested surplus extraction, Labour market competition between domestic and migrant workers, Tax policy as mechanism for distributing costs of reproduction of capital
The migrant labour levy proposal reveals capital's contradictory relationship with migration: employers benefit from access to cheaper labour, but political stability requires managing native working-class discontent. Reform UK's solution maintains cheap migrant labour while extracting additional surplus through the levy—costs ultimately passed to workers through reduced wages or consumers through higher prices. The defence spending debate concerns which sectors of capital receive state investment and which workers' taxes fund it.
Resources at Stake: £40bn in proposed Reform UK tax cuts, £28bn defence spending increase, Social housing allocation, Pension triple lock (approximately £10bn annual cost), Technology platform advertising revenue dependent on youth engagement
Historical Context
Precedents: Gordon Brown's 'British jobs for British workers' rhetoric (2008), Post-2008 austerity redirecting crisis costs to working class, Cold War defence spending consensus, 1980s Labour internal conflicts over defence and leadership, Historical use of immigration controls to discipline both migrant and native workers
This moment reflects late-stage neoliberalism's characteristic contradictions: the state must simultaneously attract mobile capital while maintaining political legitimacy among an increasingly precarious working class. The bipartisan consensus on military spending echoes Cold War patterns but now serves post-Brexit Britain's attempt to maintain imperial relevance. Reform UK's explicit nationalism represents a right-populist response to neoliberalism's failures—redirecting class anger toward migrants rather than capital. The leadership crisis within Labour mirrors the party's historical tensions between parliamentary management and working-class interests, now intensified by two decades of deindustrialisation in constituencies like Makerfield.
Contradictions
Primary: Capital requires both cheap migrant labour for accumulation and nationalist division to prevent working-class solidarity—Reform UK's policy attempts to square this circle through the levy, but this contradiction cannot be sustainably managed.
Secondary: Defence spending increases require either austerity elsewhere or increased taxation, contradicting anti-tax rhetoric, Social media ban claims to protect children while implementing surveillance infrastructure that threatens civil liberties, Labour claims working-class representation while competing with Conservatives on military spending priorities, Reform UK claims to represent workers while proposing policies that maintain capitalist ownership relations
These contradictions are likely to intensify rather than resolve. A Burnham victory in Makerfield would expose Labour's vulnerability to left-populist challenges, potentially forcing either genuine policy shifts or further rightward adaptation. Reform UK's migrant scapegoating may provide short-term electoral gains but cannot address the underlying crisis of British capitalism's declining productivity and rising inequality. The defence consensus will face fiscal constraints as competing demands mount, potentially triggering a legitimacy crisis when promised 'readiness' fails to materialise.
Global Interconnections
Britain's political turbulence reflects broader patterns across the declining imperial core. The push for increased defence spending connects directly to NATO's confrontation with Russia and the broader realignment of global power away from Western hegemony. Britain's post-Brexit position—seeking special relationships with both the US and EU while neither fully provides—creates intense pressure to demonstrate military relevance. The migrant labour debate mirrors developments across Europe and North America, where capital's need for labour mobility conflicts with the political utility of nationalist scapegoating. Reform UK's policies echo those of continental far-right parties and Trump's America First agenda. Meanwhile, the social media ban reflects a global trend of states attempting to reassert control over information flows dominated by US-based tech monopolies—though framed as child protection rather than geopolitical competition. These interconnected crises suggest British politics increasingly responds to forces beyond national control while offering voters only nationalist or technocratic management options.
Conclusion
This political moment reveals British capitalism's difficulty managing multiple simultaneous crises: imperial decline, working-class fragmentation, and legitimacy deficits across the political spectrum. For workers, the key insight is that none of the major parties offer genuine alternatives—all accept militarism, all maintain capitalist ownership, and all seek to manage rather than resolve class contradictions. The Makerfield byelection may reshuffle personnel at the top, but the task of building genuine working-class organisation across national and ethnic divisions remains. Reform UK's explicit strategy of division through the migrant labour levy should clarify the stakes: either workers build solidarity across borders, or capital will continue playing them against each other while extracting ever more surplus for military competition.
Suggested Reading
- Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of inter-imperialist rivalry and the labour aristocracy illuminates both the defence spending consensus and the political utility of national divisions within the working class.
- Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti (1997) Parenti's examination of how fascist and right-populist movements serve capital while claiming to represent workers directly applies to Reform UK's nationalist scapegoating strategy.
- The Making of the English Working Class by E.P. Thompson (1963) Thompson's historical study of working-class formation in England provides essential context for understanding constituencies like Makerfield and the cultural-political terrain that Reform UK attempts to exploit.