Things appear to be going from bad to worse for this Labour Government.
Following his “loveless landslide” in July, Sir Keir Starmer appears to be lurching from one disaster to the next.
His chaotic premiership is evident in poll after poll, with voters registering their discontent.
Arguably one of the most damning came only two days ago. A mega-poll released by the think tank More in Common suggested that Labour would lose nearly 200 seats should an election be held tomorrow.
Labour will look to reset in the New Year. Start afresh. Until that time, here’s a look at the five biggest promises they broke this year.
Taxes? What taxes?
Labour assured no significant tax rises or borrowing increases to fund their spending plans.
Then, in her Budget, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced tax increases totalling £40billion—the largest such rise since 1993.
The decision to impose a 20 per cent inheritance tax on farmers’ assets valued over £1million has proven to be the most controversial.
Former leader of the Conservative Party Rishi Sunak, accused the government of deceit and breaking fiscal pledges, stating: “Labour had always planned to raise taxes.”
The chancellor even admitted that she had been wrong to say before the election that no major tax rises would be needed, and promised there was no need to increase taxes further.
Giving negative energy
Labour promised to reduce energy bills, with a specific pledge to cut bills by £300 per household.
Instead, through new green taxes or policies, energy costs have increased, directly contradicting their promise.
As of December 31, 2024, households are facing a £70 increase in their energy bills, with further rises anticipated in the spring.
It comes after the Labour Government failed to confirm its commitment to the £300 reduction pledge in August. When questioned, officials failed to provide assurances that this target would be met.
Former Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho accused Labour of misleading voters, stating their green energy plans are “nothing more than a gimmick” based on outdated data. She emphasised that the £300 savings claim lacks credibility.
The Labour Government maintains that its clean energy initiatives will lead to significant savings for consumers in the long run.
Winter fuel
Despite Labour’s pledge to protect pensioners, they means-tested the universal winter fuel allowance, cutting it for approximately 10 million pensioners. This sparked accusations of abandoning vulnerable elderly people during winter, who will miss out on £300 a year.
During a vote to block the cuts failed in Parliament, Conservative shadow work and pensions secretary Mel Stride said Labour had made no mention of cutting fuel payments during the election campaign.
“Broken promises already, that special contract that they sought to have with the British people based on integrity and decency smashed into a million pieces,” he said.
Reeves has emphasised the need for fiscal responsibility in light of what they describe as a £22billion “black hole” in public finances left by the previous Conservative government. She argues that the decision was necessary to stabilise the economy and prevent further economic crises.
Labour has also highlighted that alongside this cut, they have implemented or are planning other measures to help pensioners, like maintaining the triple lock on state pensions (which ensures the pension rises in line with the highest of inflation, earnings growth, or 2.5 per cent), and extending support through other channels like the household support fund.
Child poverty
Labour’s manifesto for government included the promise of an “ambitious strategy to reduce child poverty”.
However, the manifesto did not mention axing the two-child limit introduced by the Conservative government under then-Chancellor George Osborne.
According to the IFS, the two-child limit significantly contributes to child poverty. They estimate that scrapping the cap would lift around 540,000 children out of absolute poverty, with an initial cost of £1.7billion a year, rising to £2.5billion annually.
This ongoing expansion of the policy’s impact, coupled with Labour’s silence on reversing it in their manifesto, has led to accusations that they’ve backtracked on their promise to tackle child poverty effectively.
Labour has suggested that the issue would be part of a broader review on child poverty through the establishment of a child poverty task force.
However, the details are decidedly woolly at this stage.
A spokesperson for Action for Children said: “The two-child benefit cap is a cruel policy that creates and entrenches child poverty. Labour’s refusal to scrap it is deeply disappointing.”
LATEST MEMBERSHIP DEVELOPMENTS
WASPI women
Despite promises made by high-profile Labour figures before the party came into power, Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall has decided not to proceed with compensation for WASPI women as recommended by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).
The WASPI (Women Against State Pension Inequality) women are those born in the 1950s who were affected by changes to the UK state pension age, which was increased from 60 to 65 to equalise it with men’s and later to 66 for both genders.
These changes were part of the 1995 and 2011 Pensions Acts, but many women claim they were not adequately informed, leading to financial hardship.
The WASPI campaign was formed to fight for compensation for the financial impact these changes had on women who had planned their retirements based on the previous pension age.
Labour included commitments to address the WASPI situation, with promises in the 2019 manifesto to provide compensation to affected women.
That same year, Angela Rayner was quoted as saying: “The government failed the women who were born in the 1950s. They stole their pensions, that contract, that agreement that they had, and then accelerated it so that those women didn’t have a chance to prepare for that. We said we’ll right that injustice and within the five years of a Labour government we will compensate them for the money that they lost.”
The Ombudsman had suggested a compensation range of £1,000 to £2,950 per woman for maladministration in communication about the state pension age increase but the government has decised to not proceed with this compensation, citing the need for fiscal responsibility, arguing that the cost was not “fair or proportionate to taxpayers”.
Leaders like Angela Madden criticised the decision as “bizarre and unjustified”, questioning the purpose of an ombudsman whose recommendations could be ignored.
There was significant dissent within Labour, with up to 100 MPs reportedly considering voting against this decision.