Some good government trackers to refer to from time to time:
https://www.economist.com/interactive/2025-british-politics/starmer-tracker
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2025
19 points (80.6% liked)
UK Politics
4343 readers
322 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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!
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.
No idea how old you are. But anyone that grew up pre internet would not use Liberal to describe the left wing of the Labour party. Liberal have not been consider left since the late 1800s when only land owners could vote.
Only American media and politics think of it that way. But over the last 20 year US politics has been embedded in lots of UK right wing media. The Left do not think ofcurrent labour leadership as illibral. But as neolibral IE in support of corporate ownership of all production. Historically Liberalism is support for corperation and wealth. Where as conservatism was support for aristocratic leadership. That is the whole history of our 2 houses. Lords and Commons. Commons was not working class. But rich landowners with no aristocrat background. Supported by the liberal party.
So yes sorry the use of illibral to describe current labour. Is very opposite to whole UK and European idea of liberalism.
I mean. This is just false, on several levels. Firstly, on the level of what I said: I didn't 'use Liberal to describe the left wing of the Labour party', because I didn't describe anyone in this way.
Historically, the formation of the Commons predates the concept of liberalism by several centuries! The Liberal party came into being only in the 19th century and was not, at any point in the UK or elsewhere, simply the 'support for corporation and wealth'. There's certainly no consensus, on the left or elsewhere, that this is the case. Liberals in the UK were responsible for extending the franchise to working people and introducing the welfare state (very much opposed by many corporations and wealthy landowners). Unsurprisingly, given that they really did redistribute wealth and power to working people, many individual Liberal MPs were endorsed and sponsored by trade unions (until we got organised and founded the Labour party). Even major social democratic achievements like the NHS and the postwar consensus were both proposed and supported by liberals like Keynes and Beveridge!
The right to protest is a part of (social) liberalism and liberal democracy, as broad concepts, and has frequently been defended by liberals in the UK, the EU and elsewhere on the grounds that it's a part of free speech and an acceptable - even necessary - part of liberal democracy. That being the case, which it is, it's reasonable to describe an abrogation of the right to protest as illiberal, just in the sense of 'not liberal'. This is not at all incompatible with (neo)liberals, in practice, failing to uphold it. Political ideologies are just not all that solid and coherent even theoretically, never mind in practice.
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!