Sharing this mainly because it pointed me towards FullFact’s Government Tracker, which looks handy. According to them, only one pledge has not been kept, on the National Wealth Fund:
“Capitalised with £7.3 billion over the course of the next Parliament, the National Wealth Fund will have a remit to support Labour’s growth and clean energy missions”
And three others are ‘Off track’, while six are ‘Unclear or disputed’.
Those that have been achieved include:
delivering an extra two million NHS operations, scans and appointments, recognising a Palestinian state, introducing a Football Governance Bill, ending the use of offshore trusts to avoid inheritance tax and abolishing non-dom status.
Some good government trackers to refer to from time to time:
https://www.economist.com/interactive/2025-british-politics/starmer-tracker
Thanks! Always good to look at multiple sources.
I think saying you’re “on track” to not doing things (e.g. not raising income tax and VAT) and then counting it as making progress is taking a rather optimistic view. There’s also In progress items like this one.
“Recruit 6,500 new expert teachers in key subjects”
Labour manifesto, page 75
Our verdict
It’s unclear exactly how this target will be measured but in any event we don’t yet have data on how the number of teachers has changed since Labour came into government.
And I don’t think “establishing a supervised tooth brushing scheme for 3-5 yo” is on the same scale as nationalising the railways or a Gaza peace plan.
I think saying you’re “on track” to not doing things (e.g. not raising income tax and VAT) and then counting it as making progress is taking a rather optimistic view
If they’d raised those taxes in their first Budget, everyone would’ve described it as a broken pledge; since they haven’t, it’s accurate to say that it’s been kept so far, and ‘on track’ is a fair gloss of ‘true, so far’, I think. Also notable that it’s FullFact’s gloss, not mine or Labour’s.
Recruit 6,500 new expert teachers in key subjects
Again, I don’t see how it’s inaccurate for FullFact to describe this as an ‘in-progress’ situation. We know the number of teachers has increased and, from the same source, that the rate of recruitment has also increased, but we don’t yet have all the data. We clearly can’t describe it as broken, and it’d be a bit much to assume that none of the new teachers were experts in key subjects. Equally, we can’t say it’s ‘On track’ because we just don’t know yet; not because it’s unclear, but because the data doesn’t exist - which is not the same thing. We do know, though, that we are recruiting more teachers, which is certainly part of what was promised. Specifically meeting the details? We’ll see. Is that not ‘in progress’?
And I don’t think “establishing a supervised tooth brushing scheme for 3-5 yo” is on the same scale as nationalising the railways or a Gaza peace plan.
Difficult to see what your complaint is, here, to be honest. No one said they were the same scale! The point is that the tooth brushing scheme has been achieved - good! Nationalising railways is on its way - good! And a Gaza peace plan… wasn’t actually in the manifesto. But the promises about Palestine that were in the manifesto have been met, and a peace plan is happening.
On the last one I’m saying that not all pledges are equal. You’re not ⅔ of the way through your list if the ⅓ left is all the difficult stuff (which it will be).
On the others, your perspective is a lot less critical than mine.
You’re not ⅔ of the way through your list if the ⅓ left is all the difficult stuff (which it will be).
Not necessarily. Some things just take longer than others!
This is the UK that Labour envisioned? Christ
Most people were voting Not Conservative. I knew even with labour in we’d still be getting fucked, but was hoping they’d throw a little lube into the act.
I voted LibDem because Labour are nowhere to be seen where I live. ABC, init.
Along with a few of reforms.
Not to mention censoring any opposition to the policies they don’t have a mandate for.
Not to mention censoring any opposition to the policies they don’t have a mandate for
You can oppose the Government’s illiberalism without exaggerating so much that you end up talking plain nonsense.
Utter fucking bull shit.
They had no mandate to support Israel in genocide. And have arrested 1000 for supporting protesters by for the first time ever suggesting property damage is an act of terrorism.
After Starmer himself supported and won an identical case of property damage as not a crime due to opposition to blairs war.
If that is not censorship of opposition you need to reconsider some of the crap your smoking.
Add all the other laws against protest. Them now talking about repeated protest for the same cause being classed as a crime.
Mo fucking way is that statement nonsense.
This adds nothing you didn’t say previously, just a load of pointless invective. I completely agree with you that the government crackdowns on protest, and on Palestine Action in particular, are egregious policies and should be opposed in every way possible. But it is not and does not amount to ‘censoring any opposition to the policies they don’t have a mandate for’. This very conversation proves that you’re wrong. You and I are currently discussing our shared opposition to government policies which weren’t in the manifesto (I assume this is your definition of ‘have a mandate for’); our only disagreement is the nature of those policies, which you wrongly think constitute blanket censorship. We’re discussing this on a server hosted in the UK, and I’m using my real name. Neither of us is expecting to be censored and neither of us is going to be. So you simply must be wrong.
Stop talking out of your arsehole.
People have been arrested for posting online support for PA. You are on a tiny community no one notices.
Your failure to notice the crap around you. Is just that. Your failure. I don’t need to add anything to my original statement. It was clear and accurate.
Your failure is also.
Okay, mod hat on for a warning: you’re being incredibly and unnecessary rude. Stop it. I’m not interested in talking to someone who cannot be even slightly civil. I would normally just stop replying but, as a mod, I have a responsibility to keep this sub a good place for discussion. Pack it in.
Fair point I lost my temper with you.
As a mod you should also consider the attitude of the community as a whole. Who clearly disagree with your opinion on my interpretation of labours actions.
Your arguments for labour. Are basically the equivalent of.
"Look at all the fish in the ocean. Fish have no reason to be nervous around fishermen. "
The fact that labour fails to arrest every voice of opposition. Is absolutely no excuse for you to criticise posters for suggesting they partake in censorship.
The evidence of the governments attempts to limit protest against them are far from hidden.
Also your use of the word illibralism. Is a very clear idea that you or your ideals are entirely American in origin. As no one in the EU considers lirbalism to be a left of centre ideal.
Fair point I lost my temper with you.
No problem, happens to the best of us.
As a mod you should also consider the attitude of the community as a whole. Who clearly disagree with your opinion on my interpretation of labours actions.
Dissent is an important part of democracy! Which is exactly why Labour’s anti-protest actions are such a bad idea.
The fact that labour fails to arrest every voice of opposition. Is absolutely no excuse for you to criticise posters for suggesting they partake in censorship.
But this is the crux of the matter. That Labour are censoring specific dissent is undoubtedly true, as is the fact that they are wrong to do so. That they are ‘censoring opposition to every policy they don’t have a mandate for’, which was your proposition, is untrue.
Also your use of the word illibralism. Is a very clear idea that you or your ideals are entirely American in origin. As no one in the EU considers lirbalism to be a left of centre ideal.
I don’t really know what to make of this? I’m from the UK as are my ideals, as far as I know; censoring political speech and cracking down the right to protest just is illiberal; ‘illiberalism’ means ‘not liberal’, which has nothing to do with whether liberalism is left-of-centre. That said, I’m not particularly wedded to the word in this or any other context! If you think I should have said ‘authoritarianism’ or similar, that’s fine with me.
I dare you to hold up a piece of paper saying “I support Palestine Action” in your local town centre then.
I oppose the proscription of Palestine Action. It’s deeply wrong for numerous reasons and I posted stuff against it on this very sub at the time it was happening. But it not does constitute ‘censoring any opposition to the policies they don’t have a mandate for’. As I also said to !HumanPenguin@feddit.uk, this sub probably couldn’t exist at all if the government were doing this.
Their manifesto was pretty unambitious though
All they needed to do was not be the Tories to win the last GE lol
And yet Kier is trying his best to look like he’s not even that! Look, I know Labour are better than the tories, but that’s not a high bar, and Starmer seems to be trying to court right wing and far right voters more than anything else.
For sure. Morgan McSweeney is the lesser known architect behind everything that is wrong with the Labour party now.
seems to be trying to court right wing and far right voters
Totally agree, and the people who would be inclined to vote for Reform will vote for Reform and not a crappy version of them.
Personally, I’m a big fan of Zack Polanski and I’m glad to see the Greens surge in the polls. They have to be the party to fill the gap on the left that has been abandoned by Labour. There’s also Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana’s “Your Party”, but they’ve had a very iffy start to life as a political party. I hope both parties work together to try and stop Reform.
ReFuk (I refuse to call them reform) need to be stopped. I hope the greens get somewhere, and I also hope we get a better voting system and massive electoral reform in general. And possibly trebuchet every sitting politician into the Thames and then pave the Thames
Agreed. When I read the manifesto I came away with the impression that they’d identified a number of real issues, but their proposed solutions wouldn’t work / be enough.
Some of the in-progress and off-track stuff is categorised as such precisely because it was so ambitious, housebuilding in particular. The plan to totally decarbonise the grid was left out of the manifesto because it was basically impossible to do at that speed (it’s still informally the plan).
Over promise and fail; under promise and get accused of lack of ambition!
