
BBC reporters assess Labour government's performance one year in
A question of growth
Key pledges: The government says its number one mission is to put more money in pockets, which means growth. And for good reason: over the last 15 years, the UK has expanded at a fraction of its previous rate and some people failed to see living standards improve.Status: It was a rocky start for the government as the economy flatlined in the second half of the year and ministers watered down their aim to have the fastest growth in the G7 major economies. Perhaps this was reality hitting over the challenges at hand. A pick up at the start of 2025 meant that GDP per person was about half of 1% higher by April than it had been last summer. So we're better off – but not by much.Analysis: Rachel Reeves says the world has changed, while President Donald Trump's trade wars and greater geopolitical uncertainty make those growth ambitions tougher. But the government's own policies risk weighing down the outlook for the next year or two. The rise in minimum wage has helped millions of workers but that and other policies - such as the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions - are weighing on businesses profits and jobs. There are more than a quarter of a million fewer employees than a year ago; the biggest losses are in hospitality and retail, among the sectors most likely to have seen their wage bills increase. Analysis of job postings by the Institute of Employment Studies suggests the increased hesitancy among employers dates back to the Autumn Budget as they braced for these policies to be implemented.
Net migration levels and small boats
Key pledges: To "reduce net migration" and "smash the criminal boat gangs".Status: Net migration, the difference between people arriving and leaving the UK, has fallen sharply since the election. But the reduction has been driven largely by visa restrictions introduced by the previous government. Even tougher controls, including the closure of a visa scheme to fill vacancies in social care, are contained in new laws yet to be implemented.Analysis: The government wants to reduce the UK's reliance on overseas workers by linking policies on immigration with employment training. However, Home Office advisers caution that increasing the skilled workforce does not guarantee a reduction in migration. Ministers believe tighter rules on worker and student visas, together with increased enforcement on illegal working, will mean significant falls in foreign arrivals - but net migration remains substantially higher than a decade ago.Alongside policies to cut overall numbers, the government promised to restore order to the asylum system, end the use of hotels and "smash" the criminal boat gangs. However, small boat Channel crossings have increased significantly in Labour's first year and statistics suggest more migrants are receiving asylum support than at the election. The backlog of people awaiting an initial decision has decreased but this has been offset by a sharp rise in appeals. Hotel use is also slightly up, according to the latest figures.While irregular migration accounts for only a small proportion of total arrivals, this aspect of immigration has a huge impact on the government politically and economically. The Treasury's spending plans are partly reliant on the promise to save billions by ending the use of asylum hotels by 2029, and the rise of Reform UK in the polls is seen by some as a sign of public frustration at small boat crossings.The government has established a Border Security Command coordinating efforts to reduce illegal migration. Meanwhile, new legislation will treat people smuggling as a crime equivalent to terrorism. Deals with international partners and reports of an imminent returns agreement with France are seen as key to fulfilling the promise to "smash the gangs" too. Much depends, however, on factors beyond the UK's control.
Trump, Ukraine and the EU
Key pledges: Labour promised to "reconnect with allies and forge new partnerships to deliver security and prosperity at home and abroad". That included staying close to the US and resetting the UK's relationship with the European Union. It also promised "steadfast support for Ukraine".Status: Allies say Keir Starmer has managed his relationship with Donald Trump well, securing a tariff deal - and US backing for a politically controversial plan to cede sovereignty of a joint military base in the Chagos Islands. He has also protected the AUKUS security pact with Australia and the US. The UK has sustained support for Ukraine, working with European allies to keep pressure on Russia and help heal the rift between presidents Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky after their Oval Office bust-up. Starmer also led European discussions about plans for a post-war "reassurance force" in Ukraine. The UK has agreed a trade deal with India. It has also reset diplomatic relations with the EU, easing some trade regulations and agreeing a UK-EU defence pact. Analysis: Starmer has discovered that governments can become consumed by foreign affairs and his first year is no exception. The chief criticism levelled at the government is that it is too cautious. Has it put enough pressure on Russia - targeting the $300bn (£220bn) of assets frozen in European jurisdictions, or sanctioning Russian wealth in London? On the Middle East, the government has cut some arms sales to Israel. But it is under growing pressure from MPs to oppose more firmly Israel's deadly operations in Gaza and give formal recognition to a Palestinian state. Critics say changes to UK-EU relations are too modest to boost the economy significantly and should go further. The China audit has been completed but the government is refusing to publish the document, citing security concerns. Critics say ministers are fearful of losing Chinese investment by being too explicit about security concerns.On climate change, some MPs struggle to see the leadership that was promised. In opposition, Labour promised to "rebuild Britain's reputation on international development". Instead, it has slashed foreign aid to pay for defence spending, something some say has damaged relations with developing countries.
Teacher targets and VAT on fees
Key pledges: A drive to recruit 6,500 new teachers in England, and to start charging VAT on private school fees to pay for it, among other things.Status: The government hasn't met its teacher target, according to the latest official headcount - though that dates from November. VAT has been introduced on private school fees across the UK - and there are concerns about private school pupils leaving the sector as a result.Analysis: Training teachers takes time. The number of new trainees rose by 6% this academic year, but remained below target. The latest figures from November show the number of secondary school teachers rose 1,400 in a year, while teachers in special schools and pupil referral units were up by 900. However, primary school and nursery teachers fell by 2,900.In May, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson specified that the aim was to recruit 6,500 expert teachers "across secondary and special schools". That prompted fury from Conservative shadow education minister Neil O'Brien, who accused the government of "moving the goalposts" by excluding primary school numbers.Labour said it planned to fund the recruitment drive by adding 20% VAT to private school fees. The Independent Schools Council said private school fees were 22.6% higher on average in January compared with a year ago - £7,382 per term for a day school, up from £6,021.Figures out last month suggested the number of private school pupils fell by 11,000 in a year. The government said that was "within historical patterns", but private schools say more pupils are leaving than normal. There have been concerns that smaller private schools are being pushed towards closure and about the impact on students with scholarships, for example.Given the controversy, there will be close scrutiny of whether the money raised will have the desired impact.For many parents in the state sector, the need for more school staff is pressing. Government proposals to reform the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (Send) system - which has 1.7 million pupils, up 5.6% since last year - are due this autumn and parents will want to know whether staffing will match demand.
Reforms and U-turns
Key pledges: Welfare reform to support more people into work and to champion the rights of disabled people, plus a National Care Service that delivers consistent, high-quality support across the country.Status: There have been significant U-turns on welfare reform and efforts to restrict the number of pensioners receiving the Winter Fuel Payment. An independent commission into reforming adult social care started work in April 2025.Analysis: When Labour came to power, many of those who work with the most vulnerable in society were hopeful. In conversations, they would tell me that even with the nation's finances tight, surely neglected services and support for older and disabled people would be prioritised?The government would argue that is exactly what it is doing, but 12 months on, the more printable judgments of the same people would be "disappointment" and "confusion." That disillusionment is rooted in three policies – all in part shaped by saving money.First, the surprise decision to limit the £300-a-year Winter Fuel Allowance to only pensioners in the greatest need, meant the universal payment was taken away from ten million older people. After pressure from Labour MP's, the government reinstated the allowance for three quarters of pensioners, but the U-turn raised questions about its authority and priorities.Second came the welfare bill. The aim was to save nearly £5bn a year by 2030 on spiralling benefits costs. It tightened the criteria for Personal Independence Payments (PIP) and Universal Credit - the latter is paid to both working and non-working people on low incomes. Again, pressure from MPs led to another government U-turn and plans were watered down. It has potentially wiped-out long-term Treasury savings, according to some economists, and the whole saga has left many disabled people worried.Finally, there is disappointment over what the government has not done. Reform of the overstretched, understaffed and financially squeezed adult social care system has effectively been pushed into the long grass. The Casey Commission, the latest review to look at how to fund social care in the long-term, will produce recommendations next year, but its final report is not due until 2028.There is a financial and human cost to every policy and in the last year the government has discovered how difficult it is to find the right balance.
Waiting lists and structural change
Key pledges: Cut hospital waiting lists, end 8am scramble for GP appointments, scrap NHS England.Status: Some modest progress on waiting lists but more work to be done.Analysis: Health Secretary Wes Streeting shocked many in the health world by saying on day one that the NHS was broken. His aim was to acknowledge what many patients felt - and now he is trying to demonstrate that he can fix it.Near the top of that list is hospital waiting lists. The government says it has delivered a pledge for two million extra NHS appointments in England in its first year. But as of April, the waiting list for an operation or another planned appointment stood at 7.39 million - which has fallen since the election.As things stand just under 60% of those patients are seen and treated within 18 weeks, well under the NHS's 92% target. That number has improved by less than a percentage point since Labour took office.The government has promised to hit that target by March 2029, something doctors and patient groups have warned will be an uphill battle.Elsewhere, a new contract has been agreed with GPs, with more money for surgeries, a promise to cut red tape and a 5.4% pay rise for resident - formerly known as junior - doctors. Staff are now again balloting for strike action, spelling possible trouble ahead.Ministers have been eager to show a Labour administration is not afraid to reduce duplication and cut what they claim to be bureaucracy. In the process, NHS England, the administrative body responsible for managing the health service, has been scrapped along with hundreds of other agencies. But there is a risk that NHS managers will be distracted by the reorganisation above improving performance for patients, while reallocating savings to frontline services may not be simple.And the publication this week of a long-awaited ten-year plan for the NHS may promise a new network of neighbourhood health centres, but how long will it take for them to make a difference?Health is a devolved power so the Labour government only has responsibility for England, not other parts of the UK.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reform backtrack on claim ‘trans-related' library book was in children's section
A Reform -led council has backtracked on its 'trans-related' library book ban, suggesting the move is 'not a change of policy' after conflicting social media posts from councillors. Earlier this week, Kent County Council (KCC) leader Linden Kemkaran said the books were to be removed with immediate effect after a fellow Reform Councillor said he had been informed of 'transgender ideologies' in the children 's section of a library. But KCC has since said that the book which triggered the ban was in fact on display at the front of a library in Herne Bay, rather than the children's section. The council's Liberal Democrat opposition leader, Antony Hook has said that Reform not following 'proper process' in the council and announcing things on social media has created uncertainty. Cllr Kemkaran added on X that 'telling children they're in the 'wrong body' is wrong and simply unacceptable' and said that 'trans-related' works would be removed from the children's sections of all 99 of the county's libraries. The book Reform were referring to was The Autistic Trans Guide to Life by Yenn Purkis and Dr Wenn Lawson, which is a book for autistic trans and/or non-binary adults marketed as providing 'tools and strategies they need to live as their best self'. There is no suggestion from the promotional material around the book that it contains any reference to telling children they are in the 'wrong bodies'. In his video posted to social media on Thursday, the Reform Cllr responsible for the ban Paul Webb claimed: 'I was recently contacted by a concerned member of the public who found trans-ideological material and books in the children's section of one of our libraries – I've looked into this, and it was the case. 'I have today issued an instruction for them all to be removed from the children's section of our libraries.' The council has since rowed back on his suggestion that the book was in the children's section and says that they have not, in fact, changed policy. A KCC spokesperson told PA Media: 'We have not changed policy. We have simply issued internal instructions to reaffirm existing expectations: that adult books are not to be placed in areas specifically aimed at children, such as children's sections or public welcome displays where children select books.' It is unclear how the council will classify transgender-related books, and whether there will be a tangible change as a result of this instruction. Cllr Webb, the Cabinet Member for Community & Regulatory Services said: 'We rightly place child protection and safeguarding at the very top of our list of priorities, as should all adults, especially those that hold public office.' Cllr Kemkaran heralded her colleagues' actions as showing 'courage and common sense in Kent' on X. Cllr Hook told the BBC: 'It is bizarre that the leader of the council is making announcements on social media, rather than to the council.' The copy of The Autistic Trans Guide to Life has been moved from a display at the front of the library 'to a section that is unlikely to be visited by children', the KCC spokesperson said.


Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Should we be concerned about multiple tiers of British justice?
Stories about 'two-tier' policing and justice have become a frequent feature in the news. Just this week, there's been yet another 'two-tier' policing row over a pro-Palestine protestor dressed as a holocaust concentration camp inmate and Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, no less, has said allegations of 'two-tier' justice are 'disgusting '. Then there's the ongoing reports about Lucy Connolly. She was sentenced to 31 months in prison for an ill-judged post on X about asylum seekers (which she later deleted). The appeal to reduce her sentence failed, but when serious offences receive lesser sentencing, there are legitimate grounds for concern. Everyone must be treated equally before the law, but public perception as to whether this remains the case is being harmed and presents a crisis of trust in our institutions. So, is the Attorney General wrong to express his criticism of those speaking up on the status quo? My new report for Civitas delves into examples of 'two-tier' policing and justice. My findings indicate public perception around police impartiality and justice have indeed been eroded over the decades. None of this should be taken lightly, given impartiality is central to the police's commitment to discharge their duties, 'without fear or favour' – but there are examples of where policing might be viewed as operating, 'with fear and favour'. Are some groups, like the white working class, treated differently to others? Are they treated equally to Black Lives Matter (who Starmer took the knee for, whilst in opposition), climate protestors or Muslim counter protestors following the Southport tragedy? Last summer's disorder was a focal point, but racial and religious sensitivities have long impacted justice for grooming gang survivors. A hierarchical hate crime policy for Britain's faith groups, plus allegations of two-tier policing since October 7, give rise to further questions about impartiality. The existing policing approach reflects that rather than operating on a colour-blind or community-blind basis, the attempt was made by police to compensate for the allegation stemming from the Macpherson inquiry of 'institutional racism' – by policing different communities in different ways. Although this is well intentioned, it is not without consequence. The Government have pushed back on this framing. In fact in April, the Home Affairs Committee Inquiry into the 2024 riots referred to 'unsubstantiated and disgraceful claims of 'two-tier policing''. The state's decisive action to quell disorder, post Southport against so-called 'far-Right thugs' (a narrative later proven to be false) was of course necessary, but it contrasts with the approach to the Roma riots in Harehills (Leeds) where at one point, the police retreated after becoming the target of the mob themselves, or disorder by predominantly Muslim counter-protestors in Bordesley Green (Birmingham) where journalists were targeted and a white man attacked outside a pub. Remarkably, Leeds City Council issued a joint statement (a day after Harehills) praising the Romanian/Roma community contribution to, 'the diversity and richness of the Harehills'. Meanwhile, despite the serious public disorder in Birmingham, reports indicated 'a lack of police presence'. West Midlands Police consulted 'community leaders' prior to the disorder, and Harehills was largely viewed as a community issue. The 'community leader' gatekeeper concept, when applied to some groups, but not others, introduces an element of police bias. Worst still, the Home Office X account referred to the post-Southport protestors as 'criminals' even before they had been tried in court, removing the legal principle of presumption of innocence. Justice for them was indeed swift – the disorder broke out on 30 July, with the first prison sentences announced a week later. Meanwhile, a suspended Labour councillor who pleaded not guilty to encouraging violent disorder last summer is going to trial in August 2025 – a year on. But allegations of impartial policing or policy aren't restricted to how the state deals with public order. Take the recording of hate crime, or Orwellian non-crime-hate-incidents (NCHIs) for religion. Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are prioritised. The Government's secretive 'Islamophobia' working group, tasked with putting together a new definition should really pause until completion of the national grooming gang inquiry. That's because allegations of so-called 'Islamophobia' could stifle open discussion. But why does the Government not also define anti-Christian, anti-Hindu and anti-Sikh hatred, whilst they're at it? Or better still – treat them all on one equal footing? After the targeting of a mosque in Southport last summer, the Government announced additional 'emergency' security funding for mosques to build on the existing £29 million fund in place last year, allocated to the standalone Protective Security for Mosques Scheme. But no 'emergency' funding announcement came forth when a Hindu temple in Leicester (and one in Birmingham) was targeted during the Hindu-Muslim disorder back in 2022. Standalone funding schemes dedicated to protecting places of worship exist for some religious groups, but not others. Although the Government will continue to dismiss claims of 'two-tier' justice, in April it was forced to introduce emergency legislation to kibosh guidelines specifying preferential treatment for 'minority' communities to, 'prevent potential differential treatment arising from the Sentencing Council guidelines and avoid any unintended discrimination'. As I discovered, there are many examples of where identity politics and progressivist causes have trumped impartial policing. It is time to reinstate equality before the law for all citizens, regardless of their politics, religion or identity grouping.


The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
The leadership rumours inside Labour that speak volumes about Starmer's future
The images of Rachel Reeves crying on the frontbenches during PMQs on Wednesday – just hours after the government was forced into a humiliating £5bn climbdown on welfare – were stark. It looked like Sir Keir Starmer's top team was on the brink of falling apart. But the following day, the prime minister came out fighting, insisting his chancellor – who also looked notably more cheery – was here to stay. A minister in tears would make news any day of the year. But on a day when questions over the prime minister's leadership were already splashed across the papers, just days before he was due to mark one year in office, the image was even more jarring for Labour – and only served to add fuel to growing questions about whether or not he is the right person for the job. For weeks now, there have been whisperings of a possible leadership bid by Angela Rayner. The housing secretary's repeated attempts to shut down the rumours – saying she has no desire to hold the top job – have done little to dampen speculation. The rumours speak volumes about the level of disaffection within the party over Sir Keir's leadership and the direction of government. Labour won a thumping majority at last year's general election. They had a clear mandate to deliver their so-called 'plan for change' and there was a real sense of optimism. But just one year on, that optimism is well and truly gone. After repeated attempts to reset the narrative, the prime minister's authority has been damaged, while brutal polling shows that voters have turned away. And this week's humiliating welfare debacle, which saw the PM gut his reforms entirely only to still be faced with the largest rebellion of his premiership so far – has only added to his mounting woes. Behind the scenes, there is now more wrangling than ever over where Labour goes next. If Tuesday's welfare vote proved anything, it's that Labour MPs are far more left-wing than their party's leader. Starmer has been attempting to pull the party to the right both to try to combat the threat posed by Reform, but also to deliver a government that meets the expectations of the British public. But as a result of failings in Downing Street, and obfuscations from his own MPs, it hasn't worked. There are now growing calls for a reset in No 10. The problem, however, is that this isn't the first time the prime minister has attempted to do so. We've seen repeated attempts to draw a line under previous mistakes and fumbles from the government, but no real change in direction. Despite Starmer's insistence that his chancellor is here to stay, there is a growing feeling that without a reshuffle, the PM will be unable to truly draw a line under the past year. If he can accompany that with both a clear plan to plug gaps in the public finances after several U-turns – including Tuesday's welfare chaos and previous rowbacks on winter fuel payments – alongside a genuine strategy to bring down immigration, he may be able to turn his fortunes around. But if that fails, and Starmer is unable to use a reshuffle to save some of his own authority, there is a small but growing chance the prime minister will be booted out before the next election. Championed by the so-called 'soft left', there is now a developing feeling within Labour that if the party, led by Rayner, provided a true left-wing offering (and did it well), that could be a far more effective counter to the divisive politics of Reform UK than Starmer's pragmatism. Especially given Nigel Farage's proposals to lift the two child benefit cap and restore winter fuel payments to all seem to have gone down remarkably well with the British public. But sitting to the right of Rayner is Wes Streeting – also seen as a strong contender to succeed the PM. He's well-liked by the party, as of last month being the third most popular Labour politician among party members – behind Rayner and Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, who is not currently a Labour MP. He's so far proven himself a safe pair of hands when it comes to the health service, and has led one of the few departments that seems to be somewhat successfully implementing the change they promised. While allies of both Streeting and Rayner are attempting to shut down fevered speculation over possible leadership bids, a number of party insiders see the local elections in May next year as the deadline for when a decision would need to be made on the party's future. But there is an important health warning that needs to accompany any talk of replacing Starmer. He won a massive majority. The Tory years, which saw Britain run by three different prime ministers in two months, shouldn't fool anyone into thinking replacing him will be an easy task. The only official way to remove an incumbent leader of the party is for 20 per cent of Labour MPs to nominate a willing candidate to stand against the leader, triggering a leadership contest. With Labour's current majority, that would require at least 80 MPs to get behind a single candidate – no easy task. Therefore, the chance of Starmer being replaced is, at present, small. But the clock is ticking. Voters are currently unconvinced that Labour is anything different from the '14 years of Tory failure' that Starmer so often talks about. Every day that this sentiment is allowed to fester, the likelihood of a coup increases.