How Labour is doing compared to its own economic targets - and why it must deliver growth
After last year's election, I argued Britain needs to start thinking like a business if it wants to get back on track.
I supported the Prime Minister and Chancellor's commitment to put growth at the top of their priority list with measurable objectives and hard deadlines.
Their support for clear targets made a good deal of sense. Most people instinctively understand the difference between a vague ambition and a time bound target pinned to someone's name.
Ministers call it 'mission-led government.' Every pledge would be tracked, measured and judged in public.
The private sector has a name for this form of analysis - the Key Performance Indicator. As a former CEO of an online trading company, this is something I'm more than familiar with.
The KPI system, which ranks performance from red to green, is a good way to enhance focus and accountability. The traffic light system triggers debate, because there's so little room to hide - the 'devil really is in the detail.'
Sadly, one year into their time in office, the government seems to have abandoned its commitment to this kind of transparency. And, a year later, reality looks rather different.
Whilst many targets have been set - and some are genuinely ambitious, there are still too many five-year goals, too many get-outs, and too little accountability.
Worse still, the much-touted Mission Boards, which were supposed to scrutinise delivery, have vanished into the ether.
It says something about modern politics that even in the digital age, when almost any metric can be tracked in real time, the electorate still has to surf multiple websites to see if the promises made to them are being kept.
Our 16 KPIs that track what's happening
In a business, this wouldn't be tolerated. You don't get to shirk responsibility. You don't get to shrug and blame the economic weather when your targets flash red. You certainly don't get to hide the numbers.
That's why, in the absence of an official scoreboard, the Adam Smith Institute and I have compiled our own. We've rolled up our sleeves and collected 16 of the government's key performance indicators from manifestos, speeches and policy documents.
When the targets were set over five years, we've prorated them to see where they should stand after 12 months. Where relevant, we have started our analysis on day 1 of their government.
And, to make things nice and simple, we did what any good board would do, colour-coded them. Green for success. Amber if they were close (or faced genuine mitigating factors). Red for failure.
I should stress that this type of analysis is unemotional, focusing on the performance of the previous 12 months.
This analysis of performance versus KPIs does not seek to justify or commend the decisions of this government - simply to hold them to account.
How is Labour really doing?
Of the 16 KPIs, 6 are green and 7 are red, with the rest being mixed or lacking adequate data.
Worryingly the reds include many of the main economic drivers, which you can see above.
Monthly growth has averaged just 0.09 per cent since July 2024, well below the rate needed to achieve the goal of 2.5 per cent annual growth by 2029.
What's more, inflation, which the government pledged to stabilise at 2%, has also risen, with last month's inflation reaching 3.4 per cent.
Of course, sluggish growth is hardly surprising when you factor in the government's decision to raise National insurance contributions and scrap the non-dom regime.
Looking at the rest of the KPI portfolio, there are a few bright spots - particularly relating to spending.
The government, to its credit, is on track to meet its proposals on delivering new NHS appointments, hiring more mental health staff and is likely to increase defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP.
But, this raises wider questions about the government's overall strategy. What does this mean for our public finances when the government is meeting its spending commitments but not growing the economy as planned?
Labour should think like a business
In the end, the government's performance against these KPIs has been disappointing. Regardless of what one might think of their mission, they're far from making it a reality. And, they're struggling to deliver where it matters most - economic growth.
Ministers now need to focus - really focus - on these KPIs.
The PM, like any good CEO will need to hold his Ministers to account. Ministers who persistently fail to meet their targets will need to be replaced. When the KPI flashes red, they won't be able to hide behind the spin.
The next twelve months will define this government's legacy. Delivering on these commitments won't just look good on a spreadsheet. It could also help restore public confidence and show that, after years of drift, there is finally a plan that works.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Best home security system without subscription
Finding the best home security system without a subscription is a priority for many homeowners who don't want to be tied into ongoing fees after the initial purchase. Paying hundreds of pounds for a full home security system is often only part of the story, since many companies charge a monthly or annual fee to make use of every feature. These fees often cover the cost of cloud video storage, making your home security camera and video doorbell recordings available online. Some companies also lock extra functionality, like battery and cellular backup systems, or facial recognition powered by AI, behind a paywall. Security specialists like Simplisafe and Verisure use your monthly payment to fund professional monitoring services. But what if you don't want to pay a monthly subscription fee for your home security system? You'll miss out on some of the features mentioned above, but in return you get an alarm and home security system that works without any ongoing costs. There are several companies – including Eufy, Blink, Yale and TP-Link – that sell security systems with no monthly fee. They often make cloud storage available as an optional extra, but since video recordings are recorded locally, on the system itself, the subscription is exactly that: optional. Why pay for a home security subscription? Before we get to the options for best home security system without a subscription, it's worth reminding ourselves why some systems demand a monthly or annual fee to unlock full functionality. Ring is perhaps the best-known example, since even its simplest video doorbells and security cameras require a subscription to work properly. Without paying the fee, Ring's cameras and doorbells don't store any video footage. They still stream live to the Ring app – so you can see who's at the door when they press the button. But past events can't be accessed, so you won't be able to see what motion triggered your security camera while you were asleep. Ring's alarm kit also requires a subscription to enable its cellular and battery-backup systems, which keep the system online during a broadband outage or power cut. Other systems, like those from Simplisafe and Verisure, charge a fee for cloud video storage, as well as for access to their 24/7 professional monitoring services. This is where trained agents respond to your alarm, make contact with you, and, if necessary, call emergency services. Best home security systems without a subscription At the time of writing, in mid-2025, my favourite home security system without a subscription is made by Eufy. This is because Eufy's security cameras and video doorbells all record footage locally, either to the device's own integrated storage, a microSD card, or to the company's HomeBase, which acts as a central hub with expandable storage. Eufy's third-generation HomeBase also adds artificial intelligence to your compatible cameras and doorbell, which helps your security system recognise friendly faces (like your family members) and not alert you when they're spotted. Cloud storage is offered by Eufy, priced from £3.99 to £12.99 a month, but it's purely optional. All other features are included in the up-front price of the hardware. It's a similar case with Yale, whose security system also works without a subscription. The Yale Smart Alarm kit is simpler than some rivals, with a fairly basic smartphone app. But it comes from a trusted brand and, unlike most other systems, includes a wireless external siren for mounting on an outside wall. The system can be expanded with more sensors, motion detectors and cameras, and a key benefit is how the devices have a 1km (0.62 mile) wireless range – far greater than that of Yale's rivals. Like Eufy, Yale offers an optional subscription. Called Secure Plan, this costs £9 a month and adds cellular backup to the alarm system, where it uses the mobile phone network to stay online if your broadband goes off. The plan also unlocks a system where up to three emergency contacts receive an automated call when your alarm is triggered; although, they are not contacted by a human, as with professionally monitored systems. Subscribing opens up cloud storage for Yale's cameras, too, and enables an AI-powered system for differentiating between the motion of people, pets, vehicles and package deliveries. Granted, it's a good-value package (and you get six months' free with some purchases), but Yale's system uses local storage by default, so paying the fee isn't strictly necessary. Without it, you still have a fully functional security system. Blink is another security system that runs without a subscription, but here things work a little differently. Blink cameras on their own require a cloud storage subscription, since they don't save footage locally. However, this changes if you also buy the Blink Sync Module 2, which costs £40 (or is often bundled with cameras for a discount) and acts as a hub for connecting multiple cameras and a doorbell. It also has a microSD card slot, into which you can fit up to 256GB of local storage – and avoid paying the monthly fee for saving footage in the cloud. Blink plans start at just £2.50 a month and unlock extra features, like improved live streaming, video sharing, photo capture and cloud storage, but paying isn't a necessity like it is with Ring, the other Amazon-owned security company. The pros and cons of not paying for a home security subscription Pros: Avoid ongoing costs (which also often increase over time) You control your recordings; no uploading to third-party servers Reduced feeling of being locked into a product ecosystem Keeps things simple, avoiding superfluous features Cons: No professional monitoring Misses out on extra functionality Limits your hardware choices Removes cellular backup (where available) Is paying a home security system subscription worth it? This depends on your budget and your security requirements. If all you want is a video doorbell on the front door and a security camera keeping an eye on your garden or drive, you'll be fine installing the devices and having them save footage locally. This even works if you want to build a larger system – perhaps even a whole home security platform with cameras, door sensors, sirens and motion detectors – if your primary goal is to be alerted to motion, then have that motion recorded. In this scenario, a subscription for extra features might not be worth it to you, especially if you pick Eufy products that have their own on-board storage and artificial intelligence. Subscriptions become worthwhile if you want more than these basics. If you want cloud storage, then paying a subscription is the only option, since companies don't offer this service for free. Similarly, if you want cellular backup for your Yale system, AI smarts from Blink, video storage from Ring or professional monitoring from Simplisafe and Verisure, then a subscription could be worth it.
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Ukraine war briefing: Call for Nato action after Russian drone intrudes on Lithuania
Lithuania has called for Nato help to boost its air defences after Russian military drones repeatedly violated its airspace. 'Last Monday, a Russian military drone violated Lithuanian airspace,' said Kęstutis Budrys, the foreign minister in Vilnius. 'This marks the second such incident in less than a month. Similar airspace violations have also been reported recently by other allies.' Budrys added that he and the defence minister, Dovilė Šakalienė, had asked the Nato secretary general for 'immediate measures to enhance air defence capabilities in Lithuania and accelerate the full implementation of the rotational air defence model. Air defence is vital to allied security. Securing Nato's eastern flank must remain a top priority for the alliance.' Amid the nuclear row between Donald Trump and Dmitry Medvedev, the Kremlin has moved to play down the latter's role in Russian decision-making, the Institute for the Study of War has said. The thinktank said Medvedev was subsequently being portrayed as having a 'different assessment' from Putin on nuclear issues. An ISW assessment said: 'The Kremlin regularly uses Medvedev to introduce nuclear threats into the Russian and international information spaces.' Medvedev, a high-ranked official who was once prime minister of Russia, as well as a proxy for Putin in the presidency, accused Trump of taking 'a step towards war' by tightening an ultimatum for Russia to seek peace. Trump in response said he had moved two nuclear submarines into position 'just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that'. The ISW further assessed that 'Kremlin officials utilised three main framings to respond to Trump's decision to redeploy the submarines: posing Trump's decision to redeploy the submarines as 'emotional,' discounting the threat that this decision poses to Russia, and posturing Russia as a more responsible international actor than the United States … These official Russian responses ignore the Kremlin's history of frequently using nuclear saber-rattling to push the west to make decisions that benefit Russia. On the battlefield, the ISW said that Ukrainian forces had recently advanced near Pokrovsk, which Russian forces have been trying to capture since at least July 2024. Russian forces recently advanced near Kupyansk, Siversk, Toretsk, and Velykomykhailivka, the institute said. Russian claimed on Tuesday to have captured the village of Sichneve in east-central Dnipropetrovsk region. The Reuters news agency, which carried the claim, said it could not independently confirm it. Donald Trump has said he will make a decision on whether to sanction countries that purchase Russian oil after a meeting with Russian officials scheduled for Wednesday. That is when Steve Witkoff – real estate promoter, friend of Trump and officially his Russia envoy – is due to meet with Russian leadership in Moscow. A Bloomberg report suggested that Putin might agree to a ceasefire in terms of airstrike but not on the ground. Also on Tuesday, the Financial Times reported that Trump's administration is considering additional sanctions on Russia's 'shadow fleet' of oil tankers that illicitly move Russian oil. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine's president, said on Tuesday he'd had a 'productive' conversation with Trump about ending the war, sanctions on Russia and the finalisation of a US-Ukraine drone deal. Ukraine, he said, had long supported US proposals for an immediate ceasefire and had proposed a number of formats to implement a halt to the fighting. 'We have spoken with and proposed to Russia quiet in the skies, no missile and drone attacks and specifically no attacks on civilian infrastructure or on the energy sector. All of this has been violated by the Russians and in a very cynical fashion.' The $300m superyacht of a sanctioned Russian billionaire is being auctioned off. The 348-foot (106-metre) Amadea was seized in Fiji in April 2022 from its former owner, Suleiman Kerimov, and is berthed in San Diego California. The auction is being held by National Maritime Services, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida, company. Sealed bids are being accepted until 10 September subject to a $10m deposit. The US Congress has passed legislation allowing the sale of seized Russian assets to fund humanitarian assistance for Ukraine.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
We must have transparency over migrants and crime. The politicians who lose control of our borders cannot be allowed to hide the consequences from us
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, looking more beleaguered and sounding less convincing than ever, said yesterday that the police should routinely reveal the nationality and asylum status of those charged with criminal offences. New legal guidance, she promised, would shortly be issued for police forces to provide greater 'transparency'. Not for the first time, Labour was rushing to follow in the footsteps of Nigel Farage 's Reform party. Only 24 hours before, as part of Reform's 'Britain is lawless' campaign, Farage had called for the ethnicity of suspects charged with rape and sexual assaults to be made public. Now Cooper was in a hurry to oblige.
