The government can fixate on targets and statistics all it likes, but the only metric that matters is whether people feel their lives are getting better, writes local democracy reporter Robert Boddy…

A little more than a week ago you may have seen Labour MPs sharing graphics boasting how the new government had delivered more than two million additional NHS appointments in its first five months — a cracking result demonstrating the turnaround Labour is making for the country.

But if we take a little look closer we find the result has been reached by comparing July to November 2023 (when there were a total of seven days of strikes from junior doctors and consultants) with July to November 2024 (when there were no strikes).

Now this doesn’t necessarily mean Labour have not, or rather will not, fulfil their promise of delivering more appointments, but it does have a slight hint of an attitude which I believe any government should avoid like the plague.

In the New Labour years there was a real focus on a dreaded T-word: targets.

Everybody in every level was given targets, from the NHS to the police to the civil service, and even ministers. These targets were supposed to make it clear who was doing their job effectively and who was not — but beneath the surface of these targets was something else.

Because the question asked was “have you reached your targets?” not “how have you reached your targets?” and there was an acceptance — if not encouragement — that the method for fulfilling goals wasn’t all that important.

This resulted in criticisms of a tick-box culture and that resources were being devoted to ensuring targets were met rather than actually providing a good service.

Don’t get me wrong, targets can be effective, and often are a useful indicator for the public to see whether the government is on track. And New Labour did use targets to make significant improvements to the NHS before they became the objective, not the method.

This week has also seen discussions around defence spending and the eventual rise to 3% of GDP — a target nobody is arguing with. But, again, reaching a spending target by buying aircraft carriers which don’t work would be an example of why the means by which a target is reached is just as, if not more, important.

The response to many of those sharing the posts about Labour delivering an additional two million appointments was: “Really?”, because if you’ve just struggled to get one a tidy graphic is unlikely to make you feel much better.

“If Labour fall into the habit of telling us how they’re hitting all their targets, but normal people aren’t feeling the benefits, it will only come back to bite them…”

I’m not breaking new ground by saying that if the government wants to talk about how it’s succeeding in its mission of turning the country around it needs to make sure people feel like it is.

If Labour fall into the habit of telling us how they’re hitting all their targets, but normal people aren’t feeling the benefits, it will only come back to bite them.

Reform in particular realised this a long time ago, when they began to argue against the use of GDP as a measure of how well the country is doing.

Rachel Reeves’ push for growth will only pay dividends with voters if it sees increased prosperity across all sections of society — but GDP can rise while only benefiting those at the very top.

So election day 2029 could roll around and Sir Keir Starmer could tell voters until he’s blue in the face that his government has increased growth and hit targets x, y and z — but unless there has been a visible, tangible change felt by the man in the street it will fall on deaf ears.

It should be said, in fairness, the public do play a role in this — we want to be reassured the government is doing well and we want metrics to prove it.

The pressure to quantify how it’s doing — and then find a version of the stats which don’t damage them politically — means often the government talks in ways not relevant to ordinary people.

But when someone asks if you feel safe on the street, how good the local schools are, or whether the hospital provides good care, do you reel off a bunch of stats?

And if someone asked if you were better off 10 years ago compared to now would you say “well the GDP of the UK has increased by…”? I don’t think so.

Labour should junk this style of needing a steady flow of updates on how great they’re doing and focus their time on getting things done.

If they don’t waste their time they might be able to improve things — but if they’re still relying on the careful angling of facts in four years' time no amount of media management will save them.

There are plenty of ways to stay in the know when it comes to politics in Kent and Medway.

For more from Daniel Esson and the local democracy team, you can sign up to the Kent Politics Briefing newsletter, which arrives in inboxes every Friday.

You can also listen to our Kent Politics Podcast. In this week’s episode, Kent MP Lauren Edwards reveals for the first time the “shock and disbelief” she experienced after historic tweets of hers were republished, leading to a social media storm.

You can listen to the podcast at IM Listening, or download it from Apple Podcasts, Spotify and TuneIn – just search for Kent Politics Podcast. New episodes are available every Friday.

And you can watch the KMTV Kent Politics Show every Friday at 5pm on Freeview channel 7 and Virgin Media channel 159.