Which of the current UK Labour government's manifesto has it not done or done the opposite?

1. What counts as “not done” — the methodology dispute that matters

Judgements depend on whether promise-keeping is measured against the exact wording of the manifesto or against the government’s broader stated intent: Full Fact deliberately scores promises against manifesto wording and so finds only one clear miss on technical grounds, the National Wealth Fund capitalization, while noting the government has pursued the “spirit” of the pledge in other ways ^[3]; other trackers take a broader view and flag more deviations ^{[1] [2]}.

2. The manifesto promise explicitly not met (the technical miss)

Full Fact’s detailed monitoring concludes that, at the stage of its review, the only manifesto commitment demonstrably not kept—at least on a literal reading—was the pledge to capitalise the National Wealth Fund with £7.3 billion, a shortfall that the government sought to paper over by saying it had matched the spirit rather than the letter of the commitment ^[3].

3. Clear shortfalls and slow delivery on big-ticket pledges

On large, politically salient pledges there are notable gaps: the manifesto’s target to build 1.5m homes in five years requires an unprecedented ramp-up and housing starts were far below the pace needed, making delivery of that pledge highly unlikely on current trends (BBC analysis) ^[6]; major infrastructure projects promised as part of decarbonisation and energy resilience—Sizewell C among them—face financing delays and timing slippage, which has slowed fulfilment of related manifesto commitments (Beale & Co) ^[5].

4. Where the government has done the opposite or tightened in ways critics say contradict the manifesto

Some policy moves look directionally different from expectations in the manifesto: trackers record immigration reforms that have tightened visa criteria and closed some low‑pay routes such as the care worker visa, signalling a tougher approach to labour mobility than some observers had expected from Labour’s platform (Baker McKenzie) ^[2]. Financially, analysts at the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that the manifesto’s fiscal posture — to get debt falling in the fifth year of the forecast — creates pressure for trade‑offs that could produce tax rises or spending shifts inconsistent with the manifesto’s tone, a contrast picked up by critics who argue the government has introduced tax measures seen as at odds with pre‑election commitments (IFS) ^[4].

5. A raft of pledges still “in progress” or ambiguous, not outright broken

Many of Labour’s more detailed promises remain in consultation, reform or pilot phases — planning system changes are being prioritised and the government has signalled moves to undo recent national policy changes and introduce strategic tools, but implementation is underway rather than complete (Planning Resource) ^[7]; workers’‑rights and care‑sector reforms are under design with potential conflicts between different promises (Fair Pay Agreements versus negotiating bodies) flagged by the Institute for Government as unresolved rather than abandoned ^[8].

6. Verdict and competing narratives

Taken together, independent trackers portray a government that has largely translated manifesto rhetoric into policy workstreams but has one clear technical miss and several high-profile delivery problems or directional shifts — especially on housing, major infrastructure timetables and immigration rules — while economists and commentators continue to debate whether fiscal choices amount to broken promises or pragmatic adjustments (Full Fact; Baker McKenzie; IFS; BBC; Beale & Co) ^{[3] [2] [4] [6] [5]}. The Financial Times presents a more severe critique that Labour has broken commitments on taxes and growth strategy, offering an alternative, critical framing of the same evidence base for readers who want a harder line on perceived backtracking ^[9].