Labour, Human Rights Violations, Race: Progress Without Urgency Is Not Progress Enough .

Since taking office in mid-2024, the Labour government under Keir Starmer has presented itself as a corrective to more than a decade of democratic erosion. On paper, this positioning has substance. In delivery, however, the record is mixed — and in some areas worryingly familiar.

On human rights, there are indications of a shift in direction. The long-delayed socio-economic duty under Section 1 of the Equality Act — dormant since 2010 — has been pledged for activation, potentially requiring public bodies to consider inequality in their decision-making. Labour has also moved to repeal or soften restrictive anti-union legislation, restoring elements of collective bargaining and strike protections weakened in recent years. Proposals aimed at curbing forced labour in global supply chains and strengthening corporate human-rights responsibilities signal an intent to address structural abuses rather than merely their symptoms.

Taken together, these steps represent an improvement in intent over the previous government’s record, particularly on labour rights and economic justice. But intent alone does not constitute a human rights settlement.

Civil liberties remain under strain. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has warned that the UK continues to fall short of its international obligations, including protections for peaceful protest and adequate access to healthcare for disabled people. These concerns have been sharpened by the policing of protests over the past year, particularly demonstrations linked to Palestine solidarity and climate activism. High-profile arrests of non-violent protesters have prompted criticism that existing public-order powers — many inherited from Conservative-era legislation — are being applied in ways that risk criminalising dissent. Senior figures, including voices within Labour’s own broad political tradition, have cautioned against conflating protest with extremism. New Statesman

Labour’s failure to decisively roll back these frameworks has created a credibility gap: a government rhetorically committed to rights, yet reluctant to confront the legal architecture that restricts them.

The picture on race and racism follows a similar pattern. Labour has positioned itself explicitly as an anti-racist party, adopting policies that recognise Afrophobia and anti-Black racism as distinct and unacceptable forms of discrimination. Proposals for a Race Equality Act are framed as a renewal of the legislative ambition that began with the Race Relations Acts of the post-war period. Strategic plans targeting racial harassment in policing and other uniformed services acknowledge long-standing institutional failures rather than denying them.

Yet racial harm indicators continue to move in the wrong direction. Far-right, racist and Islamophobic violence in mid-2025 — driven by longer-term social and political forces — underscored how fragile community cohesion remains. Official reporting shows continued increases in race-based and religious hate crimes. The EHRC has repeatedly noted limited progress on issues such as racial profiling by law enforcement and racist bullying in schools, while trade unions report persistent racism and degrading treatment experienced by migrant workers across multiple sectors.

These trends do not negate Labour’s policy commitments, but they expose a persistent gap between policy declaration and lived experience. Too often, the government appears reactive rather than anticipatory — responding to crises after harm has occurred rather than deploying enforcement, resources and political capital to prevent it.

There is also a broader climate of mistrust that Labour cannot ignore. Allegations circulate online claiming misuse of national data, benefits systems, or the electoral register for political coercion. However, there is no credible evidence from investigative journalism, official inquiries, or independent watchdogs to substantiate such claims. Oversight bodies, including the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Electoral Commission, have identified administrative failures and isolated internal party data issues, but no systemic abuse of state data or election infrastructure. The danger lies less in proven misconduct than in the erosion of public confidence when transparency, accountability, and communication are weak.

For many racialised communities, trust in institutions is shaped not only by domestic policy but by perceived moral consistency. Internal party tensions and public debate around foreign policy — particularly Gaza — have contributed to feelings of alienation among some voters, even where causal links are contested. In an era of rising populism and political fragmentation, ambiguity carries its own risks. New Statesman

Labour’s record, then, is not one of outright failure — nor is it one of transformation. Compared to its predecessors, the government has improved the language of rights and reopened policy doors that were deliberately closed. What it has not yet done is move with the urgency required to rebuild public confidence that those rights will be defended when it is politically inconvenient to do so.

Human-rights credibility is not established by legislation alone. It is established through enforcement, through restraint in the use of state power, and through a willingness to protect unpopular speech and marginalised communities even under pressure. Until Labour closes the gap between aspiration and action, its record will remain adequate — but inadequate for the moment the country is in.