Labour's Employment Rights Bill

[Terry - Somerset]

Black hole

The emergence of a black hole was predictable long before the election:

• an inevitability that any incoming government seeks to blame its predecessors
• the huge gap between aspiration (not hard promises) and reality in Labours manifesto.

In fairness all manifestos painted a future far more rosy than the reality - but Labour as the likely victors with their commitment to transparency should have been more honest.

Much of the black hole relates to acceptance of the pay review not available pre-election. The forecast pay increase would be obvious to Reeves who chose to accept the recommendations. I think she was right to do so but dishonest to assert it came as a surprise.

Another large part of the black hole - £6.4bn undisclosed asylum and immigration costs - the figure would have more credibility if the detail was evident rather than leaving us in ignorance.

Changes to non-dom and windfall tax are no surprise, although no detail at present.

Other cost savings could have been drawn from past episodes of Yes Minister - cancel projects which have been announced but not yet started. The illusion of motion whilst standing still!

Winter fuel allowance

Her saving on fuel allowance may be generally fair on the basis that wealthier pensioners are best able to afford its removal. Whilst affected, in truth its loss will make little difference.

Basing eligibility on receipt of pension credit adds complexity to systems which desperately need simplification. The basic state pension should be uprated to cover the heating allowance.

If pension + other income pushes a pensioner into tax it should be paid as normal. This means that the wealthiest pensioners pay the highest tax, most pay 20%, lowest income no tax.

It gets rid of the admin and error associated with the current scheme, and means none lose out through failing to claim pension credit.

That the current allowance is close to the pension can be dealt with separately - eg: age allowance for all over retirement age.

Overall assessment

Predictable, unremarkable, but disappointed that honesty and transparency are taking second place to political expediency. Trust will diminish through being economical and selective with the truth - they don't yet match their Tory predecessors, but are definitely on the same trajectory

 

[Rhossydd]

Don't apprentices usually get paid significantly less

The term 'junior doctor' is NOT similar to an apprentice, they just haven't got a consultant's job yet.
"Junior doctors are qualified doctors in clinical training.
They have completed a medical degree and can have up to nine years' of working experience as a hospital doctor, depending on their specialty, or up to five years working and gaining experience to become a general practitioner (GP)."

https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-s...qualified doctors,a general practitioner (GP).

 

[Jacob]

.......

Overall assessment

Predictable, unremarkable, but disappointed that honesty and transparency are taking second place to political expediency. Trust will diminish through being economical and selective with the truth - they don't yet match their Tory predecessors, but are definitely on the same trajectory

Difficult to know what to think!
What we do know about Starmer is that he lied his way into the leadership, has broken many (all?) his "pledges", hates the left and is purging them, supports the Israeli apartheid regime (and they support him with hit list of false allegations of antisemitism against lefties), is blatantly establishment, authoritarian, opposed to party democracy.
Overall I'd give him 1, perhaps 0, (out of 10).
On the other hand he seems to have taken on some interesting people.
Maybe his confidence in his own ability to manage things is misplaced. There seem to be so many loose ends. Relying on "growth" being the most doubtful - government spending is the quickest way to get things moving, failing that and we are back to childish "trickle down theory".
Interesting times.

 

[Billy_wizz]

The term 'junior doctor' is NOT similar to an apprentice, they just haven't got a consultant's job yet.
"Junior doctors are qualified doctors in clinical training.
They have completed a medical degree and can have up to nine years' of working experience as a hospital doctor, depending on their specialty, or up to five years working and gaining experience to become a general practitioner (GP)."

https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/international-doctors/life-and-work-in-the-uk/toolkit-for-doctors-new-to-the-uk/doctors-titles-explained#:~:text=Junior doctors are qualified doctors,a general practitioner (GP).

I didn't mean it that literally just that the experience gained as a junior doctor is what gets them to the big money jobs!

 

[RobinBHM]

but disappointed that honesty and transparency are taking second place to political expediency

Labour had to beat the lies, propaganda, gaslighting of right wing populists in power and their supporting billionaire media tycoons to win.


Jeremy Hunt deliberately salted the earth by lowering NI knowing full well it would leave a black hole…he was “funding” it by savings to public finances.

And if Labour had reversed the NI cut, the Tory media wouldve let rip with their headlines.



All Labour have done is fund Tory policies that have already been put in place…..Tory policies which you didn’t moan about when they happened.

 

[RobinBHM]

Difficult to know what to think!
What we do know about Starmer is that he lied his way into the leadership, has broken many (all?) his "pledges", hates the left and is purging them, supports the Israeli apartheid regime (and they support him with hit list of false allegations of antisemitism against lefties), is blatantly establishment, authoritarian, opposed to party democracy.
Overall I'd give him 1, perhaps 0, (out of 10).
On the other hand he seems to have taken on some interesting people.
Maybe his confidence in his own ability to manage things is misplaced. There seem to be so many loose ends. Relying on "growth" being the most doubtful - government spending is the quickest way to get things moving, failing that and we are back to childish "trickle down theory".
Interesting times.

Keir Starmer is a good solid leader.

 

[Lons]

Well yes, in a narrow sense, that's true, in that the winter fuel payment will now be limited to people over state pension age who are receiving pension credit or a limited number of other benefits. The changes mean that only 1.5 million pensioners will be eligible - down from 11.4 million when the payment was universal. In considering the term 'needy', I'd reiterate that the National Minimum Wage for 2024 is £11.44 an hour, so someone who is working and works 40 hours a week would earn £457.60 a week = £23.795 a year. In contrast with that, pensioners on £11,350 and above who will lose their winter fuel allowance yet will be on half the income of someone on the minimum wage. £218.00 a week.

The UK definition of 'poverty' in anyone who received 60% or less of the median wage, so to that extent, 'relative poverty' will never be eliminated, but using that benchmark of 'poverty' usually, salaries are higher in the public sector than in the private sector. In 2023, the median full-time salary for someone working in the private sector in the UK was £34,217, while those in the public sector earned a median salary of £36,708.

So taking a round figure of £35,000, 60% of that would be £21,000 (£404 a week). Yet pensioners who receive as little as £11,350 (£218 a week), well below the poverty line, will now lose their winter fuel allowance. Of course, many pensioners - particularly those who worked in the public sector, some of who such as police officers and firefighter, will have retired at 60 on a handsome final salary pension, as will be some who worked in the private sector, myself included.

It's actually worse than that as the figures you've used are for the new state pension but men born before 6.4.1951 or woman 6.4.1953 will be on the old pension the basic rate of which is only £169.50 per week / £8814 pa. There are a lot of pensioners older than 73 / 71 still alive and many of those in dire need of the winter fuel payments.

What about those who live in the north or Scotland where average temperatures are several degrees lower than London and the south east, now there's an anomaly

 

[Spectric]

What about those who live in the north or Scotland where average temperatures are several degrees lower than London and the south east, now there's an anomaly

They are so far from westminster that they only count during an election, most of the time they are non-existant and like other pensioners just an easy target. Once reeves hits other taxes in October then the winter fuel allowance will be last weeks story and there will be many more unhappy people having to fill reeves black hole that she created.

 

[selectortone]

H

reeves black hole that she created.

Really? Perhaps you could explain how she created it.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

What about those who live in the north or Scotland where average temperatures are several degrees lower than London and the south east, now there's an anomaly

I suspect that at least in recent years much of the Country has averages below London and the S.E. - that tends to be the hottest in summer.
We regularly hear a forecast of 30c - 33c and think great .............. then realise that our forecst is 10c - 13c lower. Our winters are warmer though. Our problem in winter is really the rain and general dampness rather than extreme cold.

 

[Spectric]

Perhaps you could explain how she created it.

The justifiable payrise for the junior doctors and the payrise offered to the public service is part of and then if you do not proceed with the big infrastructure projects like dualing the A1 and others the hole shrinks rapidly, it is only there if you want it for political reasons or as an excuse for the forthcoming tax hikes.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The winter fuel allowance was initiated by Blair in 1997. Reeves is simply taking away from most of us that which Labour gave 27 years ago. That public spending is stressed and needs to be trimmed is beyond debate.

With their massive majority the Labour government can do whatever it wants. One can interpret the proposals currently emerging re WFA as:

• a political choice - those worst impacted are least likely to vote Labour
• a moral choice - those who can best afford the consequences pay

There is no right answer - merely one which best fits individual political ideology.

 

[Chris152]

There is no right answer - merely one which best fits individual political ideology.

Is what's 'right' really just a matter of individuals' values? That's a hell of a can of worms on so many levels, if so.

 

[Doris]

Surely a wage should supply enough money for a worker to exist. Any business that cannot survive without paying a reasonable wage to their workers is one that is not economically viable.

I've been an employee for a certain art gallery in the arts sector for nearly 3 years. I work 4 hours a week which is paying me minimum wage and I get paid a sliver of a retainer if the owners (who are Tories) decide to go on holiday. I wasn't actually paid any sick leave when I had to take time off work when I found out my Dad had died recently (I've been told that's compassionate leave not sick pay but I still thought I would get paid something for that?)

I've seen the takings for this business during that time and some months I have been paid more in wages than what the business generates in income.

I was recently told that the business was being "restructured" and was offered this new and exciting opportunity to work on a discounted commission rate on my own artwork being sold here instead of being paid a wage. I went home and crunched the numbers and realised I would lose around £2.5k a year IF my work sold at the same rate that it was during the same period.

I declined being a part of this "new opportunity" and have since found more profitable work elsewhere. Yesterday I went to the 10 year birthday party of this gallery being open which was held at an upmarket restaurant and the owner quite happily said that they had made a "6 figure sum" in those 10 years in their speech. This party I realised was a blatant recruitment drive to get other artists to work for free so I can be made unemployed. 4 have already signed up and my last day of employment is at the end of the year.

My point is there are employers out their who don't value the employee that only see them as a drain on their resources and don't really value what they are putting into the business or their skills only they can bring to the table.

Working for free is the only way for these businesses to survive and many are going this way.

 

[RobinBHM]

One can interpret the proposals currently emerging re WFA as:

• a political choice - those worst impacted are least likely to vote Labour

I would’ve thought those worse impacted would be most likely to vote Labour.

I can’t see middle England Tory voters in the Home Counties and shires being bothered about a £200 payment……which they just use to pay the tab at their golf course

 

[Jacob]

.... That public spending is stressed and needs to be trimmed is beyond debate.

Public spending does not need trimming - we've had 45 years of austerity already. It needs increasing and the damage made good.

....
There is no right answer - merely one which best fits individual political ideology.

The right answers are the ones which improve the quality of life "for the many not the few"

 

[Spectric]

That public spending is stressed and needs to be trimmed is beyond debate.

You should always lead by example and start by getting your own house in order as an example to others to follow, so start with Westminster and the politicians, civil servants and the running of parliament where there will be some huge cost savings to be made. Now you are in a position to say to others that look we have saved this so do the same.

I would’ve thought those worse impacted would be most likely to vote Labour.

Two ways to look at that, once upon a time it would have been clearcut as the working class voted labour and the more well off voted conservative but that has changed and so if you believe that the worse off now vote labour then starmer has shot himself in the foot but if you think like starmer that the older and more wise would not vote labour then reeves has nothing to lose in round 1.

The right answers are the ones which improve the quality of life "for the many not the few"

If that could be achieved then the economy would grow and there would be real change for the better because people would see a future where life was better and not so stressful. Look at china, they are growing and pulling people up the ladder as they go and it is like a huge ant colony where they all work for the country to reap the rewards. The issue we have is that starmer is just not in touch with reality or the people, he is not showing democratic leadership and causes division between the population which no one should be surprised about. He was not deliberately keeping quite during the election campagn but just had nothing constructive to say so just kept repeating " grow the economy".

 

[Keith Cocker]

You should always lead by example and start by getting your own house in order as an example to others to follow, so start with Westminster and the politicians, civil servants and the running of parliament where there will be some huge cost savings to be made. Now you are in a position to say to others that look we have saved this so do the same.


Two ways to look at that, once upon a time it would have been clearcut as the working class voted labour and the more well off voted conservative but that has changed and so if you believe that the worse off now vote labour then starmer has shot himself in the foot but if you think like starmer that the older and more wise would not vote labour then reeves has nothing to lose in round 1.


If that could be achieved then the economy would grow and there would be real change for the better because people would see a future where life was better and not so stressful. Look at china, they are growing and pulling people up the ladder as they go and it is like a huge ant colony where they all work for the country to reap the rewards. The issue we have is that starmer is just not in touch with reality or the people, he is not showing democratic leadership and causes division between the population which no one should be surprised about. He was not deliberately keeping quite during the election campagn but just had nothing constructive to say so just kept repeating " grow the economy".

 

[RobinBHM]

politicians, civil servants and the running of parliament where there will be some huge cost savings to be made.

do you have evidence to support that, or is it based on bias?

like starmer that the older and more wise would not vote labour

eh?

The issue we have is that starmer is just not in touch with reality or the people

eh?

do you have examples?

how is he not in touch with reality? ...his policies and actions since being elected have been well supported and his approval rating has gone up

Look at china, they are growing and pulling people up the ladder

have you heard of the 996 culture....where workers get pressured to work from 9.00am to 9.00pm 6 days a weeks

 

[niall Y]

Working for free is the only way for these businesses to survive and many are going this way.

Sadly, there have always been businesses around, especially in the Arts that are little more than " Vanity projects" And, of course, abuse of internships is, another way to go, to to avoid paying for staff,