A year of Labour in power - the report card, part II
How we rated the government on immigration, climate, welfare, foreign affairs, arts and culture, alongside what The Lead's readers had to say on each key policy area
Congratulations, you’ve made it to Part Two of the Labour government’s report card! We’ve been digging into each policy area and scoring the government’s performance as well as seeing how you rated the government too in our reader survey.
If you missed part one, then we covered the NHS (timely given the 10-year plan announcement which we also Untangled this week), the economy, law and order and much more too.
Here, we’re focusing on more of the headline-grabbing issues: immigration, climate, welfare, foreign affairs, and arts and culture, areas where Labour’s choices have sparked plenty of debate.
Producing this kind of detailed analysis takes time and care (especially in the heat!), please consider subscribing. It helps keep Zoe and the rest of The Lead team fed, watered, and motivated to keep applying progressive pressure to the government.
Immigration and asylum
Labour’s record on immigration so far has been a frustrating disappointment. Many hoped that the era of the hostile environment was over, but its tactics linger on, casting a long shadow over the government’s promises of change.
When Labour scrapped the cruel and unworkable Rwanda detention scheme, there was genuine hope that a more humane, practical approach to immigration was on the horizon. But too often the government’s rhetoric has veered towards Nigel Farage’s playbook rather than offering a bold, progressive vision. Keir Starmer’s regrettable “Island of Strangers” remark, which he has openly admitted he now regrets, summed up this drift, a line that alienated many who had hoped for better from the centre-left.
Labour has consistently failed to make the positive case for immigration at a time when the country urgently needs it. With a declining birthrate and labour shortages across sectors like hospitality, agriculture and care, Britain needs a fair and functional immigration system that serves the country and its evolving needs.
On asylum, Labour’s pledge to crack down on the criminal gangs exploiting desperate people is understandable. Its push for closer cooperation with the EU is also welcome, as is the long-overdue acknowledgement that global challenges require global solutions.
But results have been slow, and every day, desperate people continue to risk their lives making perilous journeys to our shores. This moral failing will persist until the government finds the courage to stand up to the right and invest in safe and legal routes for refugees.
The Lead says: Labour’s immigration stance feels more like political expediency than principled leadership. 1/5
You say: “Instead of demonising migrants and aping Reform's rhetoric, the government should educate the country about the vital contribution immigrants make to our economy and culture. Why are asylum seekers prevented from working and thereby helping the economy grow and reducing the accommodation bill?”
“Great to tackle illegal migration at source, but not accepting or acknowledging the benefits of refugees is a mistake.”
“Immigration has been a disgrace, playing into the narratives of the worst kind of racists and xenophobes. They should be focused on humane, sympathetic treatment of refugees, and economically literate immigration policies for elective migrants.”
Your score: 1/5
Energy, environment and climate
Labour’s 2024 manifesto put energy independence and net zero at the heart of its agenda, and so far the government has held its nerve in the face of well-organised, well-funded opposition. It has doubled down on its commitment to reach net zero by 2050, smartly linking energy independence with energy security – a narrative that helpfully counters right-wing critics and provides a clear, practical case for investment in green infrastructure.
The plans are ambitious: large-scale offshore wind farms to outpace the NIMBYs, major investment in clean public transport, and nationwide home insulation schemes designed to cut emissions and reduce household bills. Crucially, Labour has kept delivery of major infrastructure projects in the hands of central government, signalling serious intent to make change happen.
But challenges remain. Labour must accelerate delivery and provide clearer timetables, particularly for phasing out fossil fuels, so that businesses and communities have the certainty they need to plan and invest. Concerns also persist that its planning reforms could risk undermining environmental protections, a balance that will need careful management.
Marks are lost for refusing to nationalise the water industry, and for failing to stop the adversarial briefings between the Chancellor and Energy Secretary over growth and net-zero commitments. There’s also a real (though manageable) risk that rural and working-class communities could be left behind if the green transition isn’t shaped by fairness and engagement. Labour’s promise of a “just transition” must move beyond rhetoric if it’s to safeguard jobs and communities through the shift.
The Lead says: A bold environmental agenda, but now delivery must match the ambition. 4/5
You say: “Delivering the ultra-low carbon society is the highest priority any government in the world, despite what anyone with vested interests in the fossil economy tells you. It's existential for our grandchildren and needs to be addressed with that in mind. Excellent support for technology-agnostic solutions is to be applauded. Nuclear (fission & fusion) being supported with real capital support is hugely welcomed, along with CO2 capture (which will be ESSENTIAL even when we get to net zero CO2 emission as we have to erase the emissions since C18th), sustainable aviation fuel (because no one is going to uninvent flying), electification of transport and associated charging etc. etc. - a serious and financially backed approach - well done so far!”
“Investment in clean energy and public transport is to be applauded but support for the Heathrow Airport expansion, the Lower Thames Crossing and an inability to address the huge impact of air travel suggests that the government is not serious about tackling climate change,”
“Nationalise our utilities and introduce more sustainable schemes. Bring back EU protections.”
Your score: 3/5
Welfare
Few areas have damaged this government more than its catastrophic failures on welfare. Labour’s 2024 manifesto promised to “champion the rights of disabled people” and at first there were glimmers of hope: modest Universal Credit uplifts and hints at undoing the worst of austerity.
But those hopes have been dashed by Labour’s damaging obsession with balancing the books. Scrapping the cruel two-child benefit cap – a measure that has pushed millions of children into poverty – was swiftly (and somewhat callously) ruled out, and that was only the beginning. Welfare cuts have come to define Labour’s first year in power – a sentence I never thought I’d have to write about a supposed centre-left government.
Despite repeated promises, far too many disabled people remain locked out of adequate support, with proposals to remove PIP from many, punishing delays and a refusal to reform workplace standards leaving the most vulnerable abandoned and pushed out of employment.
Meanwhile, continued bureaucratic red tape and benefit payment delays are pushing claimants deeper into distress, while the government’s dogged focus on cost-cutting risks entrenching poverty rather than alleviating it.
Oh, and then there was the humiliating Winter Fuel Allowance fiasco, the government’s original sin, a pointless U-turn that exposed the gap between Labour’s promises and reality.
The Lead says: Labour’s welfare agenda has become its Achilles’ heel: slow delivery, exclusionary policies, and damaging missteps like the Winter Fuel Allowance blunder. 1/5
You say: “They had to reverse the decision to take away pensioners' winter fuel allowance, but now they are going after the sick and disabled. Tax the rich instead!”
“This government is continuing the Conservative playbook of blaming and demonising the disabled, chronically ill, and vulnerable people in general. They value the pound and dollar well above dignity, compassion, and empathy.”
“Should end the two-child cap. Changes to PIP will put more people into poverty.”
Your score: 1/5
Foreign Affairs
In the run-up to the election, Labour promised a shift toward a more engaged, multilateral foreign policy: a welcome break from recent isolationist tendencies. The government has made real progress in repairing key diplomatic ties, especially with the EU, and has reasserted the UK’s role as a constructive friend of the continent.
Keir Starmer’s cool-headed, diplomatic style has helped restore some international confidence in British leadership. Credit is also due to Attorney General Richard Hermer, who appeared instrumental in keeping the UK from backing the US’s legally dubious strikes in Iran.
But Labour’s record is mirred by its failure to confront the grave human rights atrocities committed by Israel. Recent months have seen some backbone: withdrawing from trade talks, imposing sanctions on Israeli ministers, and reducing some arms exports. But far, far more is needed to stop the UK from being complicit in what many see as a genocidal campaign in Gaza.
On other fronts, Labour’s handling of the Trump-era US legacy has been steady, perhaps too steady, missing chances to challenge the rise of far-right populism and authoritarianism in the West. Meanwhile, slashing the foreign aid budget to boost defence spending was short-sighted and morally questionable, weakening Britain’s soft power and likely leaving lasting damage abroad.
Public opinion supports Labour’s emphasis on diplomacy and multilateralism, but there is growing demand for moral clarity and greater courage on the most contentious global issues.
The Lead says: Labour has taken important steps toward rebuilding UK influence, but to regain full progressive credibility, it must take a greater stand against its bullies. 2.5/5
You say: “Placating Trump doesn't look good, but if it preserves jobs, then it has to be swallowed. The PM does a better diplomatic job abroad, maintaining the UK's lead on issues like Ukraine than he does at home.”
“Keir Starmer has shamed us all with his fawning over right-wing dictators like Trump and Netanyahu. Most of us learnt how to deal with bullies and liars at school. You have to calmly stand up to them and never believe what they say. He has made Britain look weak and immoral. Watch Macron and Carney for how to do it.”
“It’s a misguided alliance with the US when we should be standing with Europe”
Your score: 2.5/5
Arts and Culture
Admittedly, this one had us scratching our heads: Labour has said and done strikingly little of note when it comes to the arts.
The 2024 manifesto rightly framed arts and culture as vital for economic recovery, social cohesion, education, and wellbeing, especially post-pandemic. Promises to boost funding for cultural institutions, expand creative education in schools, and support regional and community arts all sounded positive.
There have been some gains: public investment in venues and festivals is recovering, targeted grants are supporting grassroots projects, and creative education access is slowly widening, especially for underrepresented groups. But while Arts Council funding has seen modest uplifts in certain regions, overall investment levels remain well below what is needed.
And then the sector still faces deep-rooted challenges, from precarious funding, job insecurity and — most alarmingly — neglect. Rumours of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport being quietly subsumed into other departments seem to only reinforce this impression. While regional arts have seen some renewed attention through decentralised funding efforts, many areas remain under-resourced, with the scaling up of support demanding sustained commitment.
Meanwhile, Labour has refused to stand up to big tech companies intent on gutting copyright protections, and done very little to address the post-Brexit crisis facing performing artists who want to tour or work in the UK.
The Lead says: Labour has barely mentioned the arts, and it shows. A government serious about renewal can’t afford to leave culture on the sidelines. 1.5/5
You say: “Concern for the grassroots music movement is good but concrete action needs to be taken. The creative sector should be protected from copyright protections being gutted in favour of AI.”
“Are they doing anything? Everything seems to be in limbo (see Arts Council funding). I guess they are not making it worse.”
“They don’t care about arts and culture.”
Your score: 2/5
Overall: Must try harder
Labour’s first year in office has been difficult and rather underwhelming given the scale of the task at hand. While there have been some positive intentions and flashes of promise, progress has too often been slow, cautious, and lacking in the boldness that was needed. There is a sense that Labour has been more focused on avoiding mistakes and pleasing lost voters than on delivering real change, and as a result, opportunities have been missed. Only with greater confidence, clearer purpose, and a willingness to show proper, progressive leadership, can Labour turn its fortunes around and rise to the challenges ahead. We all hope to see much stronger, principled progress in the coming year. ■
About the author: Zoë Grünewald is Westminster Editor at The Lead and a freelance political journalist and broadcaster. She has worked in and around Westminster for five years, starting her career as a parliamentary clerk before throwing away the wig and entering journalism. Zoë then worked as a policy and politics reporter at the New Statesman, before joining The Independent as a political correspondent. When not writing about politics and policy, she is a regular commentator on TV and radio and a panellist on the Oh God What Now podcast.
The foremost essential is to keep that creep Farage from gaining any further ground in British politics. He's a bloody menace, and the media, being Murdoch-controlled, give him far too much attention.
So disappointing. Given how powerful the majority of the media is, with its blatantly propagandist rightwing agenda, isn't it all the more incumbent on the rest of us to speak up?
To take just one example. Has the US foreign policy been 'legally dubious', as you put it? Or unequivocally against international law? Not to mention any degree of humanity.
I despair. The background of your lead writer/editor - the Westminster bubble followed by the feeble New Statesman - might explain a lot. Get your writing team out of these tiny, solipsistic bubbles. A sojourn in the global south might wake them up.