Labour faces union backlash after minister says living wage extension to over-18s not certain before election – UK politics live
Labour faces union backlash after minister says living wage extension to over-18s not certain before election
Another leader of a union affiliated to Labour has condemned the suggestion from Torsten Bell this morning that Labour may postpone bring down the age at which workers get the full national living wage from 21 to 18 until after the next election. (See 9.23am.)
Joanne Thomas, general secretary of Usdaw, the shopworkers union, said:
We are deeply concerned by voices within the government suggesting that Labour’s manifesto commitment to end minimum wage rip-off youth rates should not be delivered in full.
We are clear that the general election manifesto is for the lifetime of this parliament, and that is when the policy should be delivered.
The government has made a great start by tasking the Low Pay Commission to equalise the over-18s rate with the national living wage, and some progress has been made. The vast majority of young workers are already paid the over-21 rate or above; legally allowing them to be paid less undermines their position.
Thomas said her union also wanted to help young people into work and she said the government should support “good quality work”. That meant “full implementation of their Plan to Make Work Pay, improved access to reasonable adjustments, and sustained investment in skills and apprenticeships”, she said.
Earlier Maryam Eslamdoust, general secretary of the TSSA transport union, said not implementing the manifesto pledge before the next election would be “disastrous”. (See 12.12pm.)
Key events
Badenoch says Blair’s essay on Labour party shows why he should vote Conservative
Kemi Badenoch has written her response to Tony Blair’s article about Labour and its future. In an article for the Times, she says it shows he should join the Conservatives.
She says:
So you’re right: we need problem-solvers. It’s why I trained as an engineer and later, why I came into politics. I know that real problem-solving starts with diagnosing the root cause. It means facing the facts as they are, not as we wish them to be. Well, Tony surely now you must accept that the facts of life are Conservative.
There is only one show in town for the political project you proposed. In the short term, the Conservative project is relentlessly focused on delivering a high-growth, lower-immigration economy, cheaper energy by scrapping Milliband’s Net Zero targets, reducing Starmer’s ballooning welfare bill and putting the money directly into defence to increase our military strength. If we want to lead the world in AI, and get those businesses to employ people and create growth, we need to stop Reeves hammering them with more costs and stop Rayner crushing them with thousands of pages of employment law.
Everything you outlined is what I have already made Conservative policy over the past 18 months. I even published them in an alternative King’s Speech …
You are right to mock Burnham’s self-serving hypocrisy — saying that Britain has been on the wrong path for 40 years or claiming the 1970s are the example to follow. Yet this, the worst of the past, is the only future Labour now offers. Don’t expect Labour to change. Don’t waste your time with these essays. Only one person in your party takes them seriously and he’s helping the police with their inquiries. If you want serious change at the next election my advice to you — as it is to everyone who is sick of Starmerism — is to vote Conservative. After all, as someone once said, things can only get better.
Manchester airport trial judge referred Farage comments to attorney general over potential contempt
Public comments made by Nigel Farage during the first Manchester airport assault trial were referred by the judge to the attorney general for potential prosecution, the Press Association reports. PA says:
The Reform UK leader spoke out about the case in June last year as the trial of Mohammed Fahir Amaaz and Muhammad Amaad was ongoing at Liverpool Crown Court.
Farage told a press conference: “In a system of two-tier policing, under two-tier justice, under two-tier Keir, has really taken hold. You only have to look at the reluctance to prosecute those violent thugs in Manchester Airport who beat up the police officers. It took months and months for any prosecution to be brought, and I suspect the reason that it happened is because Reform said if they didn’t we would take out our own private prosecution.”
Later that day – and not in front of the jury – Judge Neil Flewitt KC said a member of the public had informed him over lunch about the comments from Farage. The judge said: “It would have been better not said. That’s probably an understatement.”
But the judge rejected an application from the defence teams for the case to be thrown out on the grounds the accused would not get a fair trial. Flewitt said he was confident that the jury could deal with the case impartially.
Later in a written ruling, he said: “I took the view that the observation made by Nigel Farage was potentially a contempt of court as it implied the guilt of the defendants.
“As Nigel Farage is a well-known politician with a considerable following and whose public utterances attract a lot of attention, I decided to refer the matter to the attorney general so that he could consider whether there should be a prosecution for contempt of court.”
The attorney general’s office has since confirmed that law officers have not issued contempt proceedings in the case.
Amaaz was convicted of assaulting two female officers and a member of the public at the airport in July 2024.
Jurors could not reach verdicts on further allegations that he and his brother, Amaad, assaulted a male police officer as a retrial was ordered.
The jury failed to reach verdicts in the retrial, and Amaaz and Amaad will not face a third trial, the CPS said today. Amaaz, who was remanded in custody in July 2024, due to be sentenced on 26 June.
Robert Colvile, the outgoing head of the Centre for Policy Studies, a Conservative thinktank, says what Andy Burnham said about housing in his Times article (see 12.36pm) was completely wrong.
The irony of Burnham’s bollocks about Right to Buy and council housing is that the secret of Manchester’s housing success was literally the exact opposite – prioritising maximum private building over number of subsidised units. Here’s (Labour) council leader Richard Leese.
Colvile quotes this comment from Leese, the former Labour leader of Manchester city council. It’s from 2021.
Some people would argue developers are pulling the wool over our eyes but we are a developer ourselves so we know exactly how much development costs. That claim is just bollocks. If we’d done what our critics wanted us to do, it wouldn’t have delivered affordable housing, it would have delivered no housing at all, zero. If we’d tried to impose 20 per cent affordability on it, it wouldn’t have happened. We wouldn’t have got 20 per cent affordable housing we would have got nothing.
Colvile took the quote from this Spectator article by James Breckwoldt, which is also on Breckwoldt’s Substack, with footnotes. It’s a very good read.
Labour seeks inquiry into Farage’s claim of Russia-linked phone hack
Labour has reported the alleged hacking of Nigel Farage’s phone to police and government cybersecurity officials after the Reform UK leader failed to do so himself, Kiran Stacey reports.
Labour faces union backlash after minister says living wage extension to over-18s not certain before election
Another leader of a union affiliated to Labour has condemned the suggestion from Torsten Bell this morning that Labour may postpone bring down the age at which workers get the full national living wage from 21 to 18 until after the next election. (See 9.23am.)
Joanne Thomas, general secretary of Usdaw, the shopworkers union, said:
We are deeply concerned by voices within the government suggesting that Labour’s manifesto commitment to end minimum wage rip-off youth rates should not be delivered in full.
We are clear that the general election manifesto is for the lifetime of this parliament, and that is when the policy should be delivered.
The government has made a great start by tasking the Low Pay Commission to equalise the over-18s rate with the national living wage, and some progress has been made. The vast majority of young workers are already paid the over-21 rate or above; legally allowing them to be paid less undermines their position.
Thomas said her union also wanted to help young people into work and she said the government should support “good quality work”. That meant “full implementation of their Plan to Make Work Pay, improved access to reasonable adjustments, and sustained investment in skills and apprenticeships”, she said.
Earlier Maryam Eslamdoust, general secretary of the TSSA transport union, said not implementing the manifesto pledge before the next election would be “disastrous”. (See 12.12pm.)
Starmer condemns ‘serious violation of Nato airspace’ after Russian drone hits Romania
Keir Starmer has joined Nato leaders condemning the attack by a Russian drone that hit an apartment building in Romania. The Russians were attacking Ukraine, and the Romanian city where the drone struck is near the border.
Starmer issued this statement on social media.
Former Labour deputy leader Tom Watson says his cancer has returned – but initial tests suggest treatment successful
Tom Watson, the former Labour deputy leader, says he is on leave of absence from the House of Lords for health reasons. In 2023 he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, but after treatment he was subsequently given the all-clear. In a post on his Substack newsletter today, he says the cancer came back earlier this year. He has taken leave from the Lords to focus on his health. “Initial tests suggest the cancer has gone, though I will not know for certain until more tests in the summer,” he says, in an update largely about his healthy living routine. “Despite the uncertainty, I feel good. Chipper, in fact.”
Government to impose tougher penalties for damaging undersea cables, minister says
Ministers are proposing new laws to crack down on damage to undersea cables amid “hostile activity by Russia”, the Press Association reports. PA says:
Tougher penalties for ship owners and operators who recklessly damage underwater infrastructure will be set out in a white paper later this year, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said.
Acts of sabotage linked to a hostile state already carries life imprisonment for the most serious cases but undersea malicious activity sometimes operates in a “grey zone” which is difficult to prosecute, DSIT said.
Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) today, telecoms minister Liz Lloyd said the government would consult on replacing 140-year-old legislation to make the law clearer, with prison sentences and fines for those who damage the cables.
“The UK already has strong protections in place for our subsea cables, but in a more uncertain world we cannot stand still,” she said.
“As hostile activity by Russia and others grows, protecting these cables matters more than ever for our economy, security and daily lives. That is why we plan to go further with tougher penalties for reckless damage, stronger security obligations and new powers to respond quickly when incidents happen.”
Reform UK candidate declines to apologise to Vorderman over online comment, claiming she’d hear ‘100x worse’ on building site
Labour has said that it is “astonishing” that Reform UK chose Robert Kenyon as its candidate despite knowing about some of his past social media posts.
There have been multiple reports in recent days about past comments he has made that have been sexist, anti-migrant, vaccine-sceptic, pro-Russia and anti-abortion. He has also been asked to apologise for one that was supportive of another man making a sexually explicit comment about Carol Vorderman, and for another post claiming Hillary Clinton was to blame for the Manchester Arena bombing because of policies she pursued in Libya as the US secretary of state.
According to a story by Sam Francis for Politico, these comments did not come as a surprise to Reform UK. A Reform UK spokesperson told Francis: “Rob declared his accounts during the vetting process as everyone is expected to. The party has fully backed him as our candidate for Makerfield.”
In response, Anna Turley, Labour’s chair, said:
It’s astonishing that Reform have admitted they knew about Kenyon’s social media accounts. Nigel Farage needs to urgently explain to the public why, if his party was aware of his online history, he was happy to put forward a candidate who has made vile degrading comments about women, multiple homophobic posts and spread dangerous false narratives about the Manchester Arena bombing.
In an interview with the Manchester Evening News, Kenyon defended his record on social media, saying: “I’m not a polished politician.”
He went on:
I am rough around the edges. I have made mistakes in my life. I’m not perfect. Nobody is. Not a single person in the world is perfect. I think everybody does say things that eventually they regret.
Referring specifically to the Vorderman comment, he said:
It was a crude attempt at a joke to probably about 50 followers.
No offence was meant, and it’s not something I’d do now.
Asked if he would give Vorderman the apology she has requested, he said:
I think I’ve addressed the issue. I think that no offence was meant and it wasn’t a direct comment to her. If you go into any building site in the area or any public barracks, I think you’d hear a hundred times worse said.
Burnham doubles down on claim Blair’s government did not roll back Thatcher’s neoliberalism
Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor and Labour candidate in Makerfield, has also published his response to Tony Blair’s essay about Labour and its future, as an article for the Times. Like the other mainstream Labour figures who have responded to the former PM, Burnham commends Blair for opening up a debate, agrees with him on some points, and declares that his views are worth taking seriously.
But, like Starmer (see 11.10am) and Wes Streeting, Burnham argues that there is a big gap in Blair’s analysis.
As I read on, I kept waiting for the main topic of conversation on doorsteps in Makerfield to make an appearance. And it never did. The fall in the living standards of millions, and the reality that life has got harder for most year on year since the financial crash in 2008, is, I believe, the gaping omission in his analysis.
This has been the single biggest driver of the turmoil in politics he describes and the cratering of support for traditional parties of right and left, here and around the world.
Lest we forget: the principal cause of the 2008 crash was a failure of regulation. So how can a new wave of deregulation plausibly be the answer to the problems we have experienced since? This is the real “retro” thinking, I suggest; the kind of thinking that would doom us to repeat past mistakes and, if we’re not careful, prevent us from protecting children by failing to regulate social media, artificial intelligence and big tech.
In his essay, Blair criticised Burnham for suggesting that governments over the past 40 years – Blair’s included – had defended an economic model that did not work for ordinary people. In his article, Burnham doubles down on this claim.
The Labour government in which I was proud to serve did many great things. It did not, however, take us off the direction set by Thatcher. For instance, the failure to reform right-to-buy and fully restore the public housing stock is the root cause of today’s housing crisis. Similarly, acceptance of the deregulation and privatisation of essential services is the same for the cost of living crisis.
This has given us 40 years of neoliberalism and the simple truth is this: it has not been kind to communities in Makerfield and those like them across the UK. Trickle-down economics did not in the end trickle down very much at all.
Burnham also argues that, as mayor of Greater Manchester, he has been pioneering an alternative, better model. In part that is about not leaving things to the market, but “being very interventionist and intentional about it”, he says.
The secret to our success is setting a unifying long-term vision for the city-region that all sectors can get behind. It’s the polar opposite of the Westminster culture. Where they do point-scoring, we do problem-solving. Where they do party-first, we do place-first. We have built a pro-business approach and a new political culture that could be part of the forward plan for the country, a more collaborative politics in Westminster creating a stable platform for some of the long-term structural changes the country needs. In other words, a new politics to build a new economy.
TSSA union leader says it would be ‘disastrous’ for Labour not to equalise minimum wage rates before next election
A union leader has expressed alarm at the suggestion from Torsten Bell that the government might not ensure that all over-18s are covered by the national living wage by the time of the next election. Responding to Bell’s interview on the Today programme this morning (see 9.23am), Maryam Eslamdoust, general secretary of the TSSA transport union, said:
Ditching the manifesto commitment to an equal living wage for employees of all ages would be a betrayal of young workers.
Young people are far too often expoited as a source of cheap labour as a consequence of the lower statutory national minimum wage rates for their age group.
At a time when the government is experiencing huge unpopularity, it would be disastrous to ditch one of Labour’s most popular policies like this.
The prime minister constantly says that he is listening.
Removing discriminatory age bands from minimum wage rates would be a concrete step towards easing the cost of living crisis for millions of younger workers.
Housing asylum seekers in former army barracks ruled unlawful for victims of torture
Shabana Mahmood’s plan to house more asylum seekers in former army barracks is facing a major hurdle after the high court ruled yesterday that a policy change forcing torture victims to share rooms was unlawful, Rajeev Syal reports.
Starmer suggests policies in Labour’s 2024 manifesto not radical enough for what is needed now
Since Keir Starmer launched his own Substack blog in December, it would be wrong to say that it has become a Westminster must-read. Often his posts just largely regurgitate speeches or policy documents available elsewhere. But last night he used it to publish a response to Tony Blair that definitely is worth a look. It runs to almost 3,000 words. Towards the end, it starts to read like a familiar list of achievements, but Starmer starts with some new and interesting arguments.
Here are the most striking points.
Now is a good moment to reflect on the government’s course. As I said when the [May election] results came through, I am not in the business of ignoring a message from the voters as stark as the one Labour received at the recent local elections. And the signal is that my government needs not just to be better, but also to be bolder. On growth, defence, Europe, energy and opportunity, we do now need a bigger response than we anticipated in 2024. In a world that has become even more volatile, that is what our ‘change’ mandate demands.
Starmer does not really elaborate what he means by “bigger response”, and there is nothing new in the essay on policy. But this comment about the 2024 manifesto does in part align Starmer with Andy Burnham and Wes Streeting, the two figures openly pitching for his job on a ‘change’ platform. Starmer concludes:
Is there more to do? Yes. Much, much more. Is our welfare system in need of reform? Yes. Is our economy in need of even more growth? Definitely. Do we need bolder policies on everything from the European Union, to protecting our children online, and the difference we can make now in preparation for higher global energy prices in the winter? Yes, and that is all coming.
-
Starmer says Labour needs to be offering more than just “higher growth and old school redistribution”. Like all other senior figures who have criticised the Blair essay, Starmer says Blair’s analysis was flawed because he largely ignored the way growing inequality, and the impact of the financial crash and austerity on living standards, have shaped the views of voters and fuelled populism. Starmer suggests some sort of new economic or political settlement is needed. He says:
Populism cannot be “bought off” with higher growth and old school redistribution, though the absence of both, as the Tory era shows, will only make things worse. Nor is it just about living standards or economic inequality, though both clearly matter deeply. No, it is a more profound and subtle crisis – its roots are economic, but it also about dignity and respect. Working people and working-class communities want an economy that they have a stake in, a state that respects the value they contribute, and a government that can help them achieve greater control over an increasingly insecure world. Any economic plan that does not wrestle with this is on a political hiding to nothing. Not just in Britain, anywhere in the western world.
This is quite a contrast from the Starmer of the 2024 election campaign who was happy to describe growth as his top priority. Quite what “an economy that they have a stake in” would mean in practice is not at all clear, but there tantalising glimpses here of something that goes beyond the manifesto offer.
It is instructive to return to the 2024 context and the despairing commentary about Britain’s perceived decline. It was a running theme of the campaign. Britain was in an unbreakable trap. A “doom-loop” so fiendish that escape was utterly inconceivable. Higher investment in public services, we were told, could not be achieved without risking the health of the public finances or throttling economic growth. Significantly reducing immigration was equally impossible without much the same effect. The loudly proclaimed truth was simple: any new government would have to choose between rebuilding the economy, improving public services, or reducing immigration. At best, it was a trilemma.
Today, that hand-wringing commentary continues unabated. But the facts about Britain have changed dramatically. After a decade of austerity, a Labour government has delivered record public service investment and performance is improving …
Meanwhile, in challenging global circumstances, the British economy is clearly outperforming our peers.
-
Starmer concedes the government has made mistake, but he says he should be judged on the “big political choices” and claims that, on these, he has been right. Here is the passage about mistakes.
Now, I am the first to admit that this ‘escape’ was not cost-free. Along the way we made mistakes – most obviously when setting the level at which to means test the winter fuel payment. We also asked a lot of the British people, particularly businesses who now pay higher national insurance contributions. And while we were right to be clear – both during the campaign and since – that it would take a while to turn the British oil tanker around, I do believe that the mood music in the early part of the government was too negative. We should have shown the underlying hope of our direction much more clearly.
Starmer criticises Blair for “picking out this or that individual policy and saying it shows a lack of coherence”. Government needs to be judged in the round, he says.
In the context of where Britain finds itself now, I remain confident we got the big political choices right. And that ultimately is why I disagree with picking out this or that individual policy and saying it shows a lack of coherence. I’ll be blunt – it is simply not a credible depiction of how government works. Government is not a to-do list. You cannot just tick off the issues, one by one. No, government is about acting on every major problem simultaneously, balancing them against each other, and trying to get to the best situation for Britain overall.
At Westminster it’s widely assumed that Starmer is on his way out. That’s what many Labour MPs think, and polling suggests party members would clearly prefer to have Burnham as leader. But here Starmer is defending his record with a confidence he probably has not shown before, and trying to align himself with the ‘change’ cause. Maybe its too early to write him off.
Here is a picture that Starmer included when he tweeted a link to his essay.
Ed Davey claims delay in publication of defence investment plan ‘shambolic and dangerous’
In their London Playbook briefing for Politico, Sam Blewett and Noah Keate say the government still has not got a date for the publication of the long-awaited defence investment plan (DIP) – even though next week will mark a year since the publication of the strategic defence review, which identified the defence spending requirements the investment plan is supposed to fund.
They say:
Despite military buffs being marched up the hill by numerous positive-sounding reports in recent weeks, Whitehall officials concede that the DIP won’t be coming next week. And that means blowing past an awkward milestone – because Tuesday marks a whole year since the publication of the strategic defence review, which necessitated the investment plan.
Problem is … the plan hasn’t been signed off because it hasn’t been decided how the £18bn spending uplift will be funded. There are clearly difficult “trade-offs,” as one person in Whitehall put it, in paying for all the jets, drones and attack subs needed to bring the British military up to speed. But time really is ticking to get this announced …
Nato officials have been making it clear to Britain that the DIP must come in time for their big summit in Ankara kicking off on 7 July, three people familiar with the conversations told your Playbook author and Esther Webber. Failing to do so will raise big questions about Britain’s credibility, one said. All the same, officials in No. 10 were insisting they won’t be boxed in by supposed deadlines.
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, said this was shambolic. In a statement, he explained:
It’s shambolic and dangerous that, as we approach a year since the strategic defence review was published, the defence investment plan is still nowhere to be found. At a time when we face an increasingly aggressive Kremlin and an unreliable ally in the White House, ministers must stop hiding and publish the DIP immediately. You cannot defend the country with a pile of unpublished reports.
MoD not properly addressing its £1.5bn fraud risk, MPs claim
The Ministry of Defence is not properly addressing the risk of losing £1.5bn a year through fraud, a committee of MPs say today.
The Commons public accounts committee has published a report calling for a change of culture in the way the MoD tackles fraud.
It says:
The Ministry of Defence is at significant risk of fraud and economic crime, with high expenditure, complex procurement, and a global workforce split between the armed forces and civil service. But over the last four years it has recouped on average just 48p for every £1 it spent tackling fraud – well below the government’s expectation of saving £3 for every £1 spent.
So far, the department has not responded to the fraud threats it faces with the degree of focus and leadership that we would expect, and it cannot demonstrate that it is doing enough to protect valuable public funds that should be available to bolster the UK’s defence capability.
The department has reported that its potential exposure to fraud can reach £1.5bn a year. But it also told us that this estimated figure is only an academic construct. It could not tell us when it will have a more reliable estimate of the scale of the problem, but later told us that it will take at least a year to develop one.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the Conservative MP who chairs the committee, said:
There must be a radical change of culture within the MoD if the flow of funds lost to fraudulent activity is to be stemmed. The apparent normalisation of fraud in the procurement process is symptomatic of a wider issue; there is no overarching strategy within the MoD of how to tackle fraud and economic crime.
In response, an MoD spokesperson said the figures in the report “primarily relate to a period under the previous government”.
They added:
We are turning that around, and last year we saved £1.34 for every £1 spent on counter-fraud measures, significantly increased on 33p for every £1 spent in 2023/24, and we expect this to be further improved this year.
We have zero tolerance for fraud and corruption and we will continue to strengthen our controls, exploiting the latest technology to prevent and detect fraud and protecting taxpayers’ money as we help keep the UK secure at home and strong abroad.
DWP pledges 300,000 new work experience and training placements for young people
Tens of thousands of new work experience and training placements from construction to hospitality will be available for young people as part of government efforts to tackle the joblessness crisis, the Press Association reports. PA says:
The 300,000 new placements over the next three years are backed by some of Britain’s biggest employers, Pat McFadden, the work and pensions secretary, said.
These include Manchester and Gatwick airports, and the government has vowed placements will reach young people across the country.
The placements, also expected to include health and social care, have been confirmed just a day after a report warning of the risk of a “lost generation”.
The number of the UK’s 16 to 24-year-olds not in employment, education or training – known as Neets – rose to more than a million, figures published yesterday confirmed.
Former Labour cabinet minister Alan Milburn, who was tasked with leading the review into Neets, wrote that lack of work experience is “the single most-cited barrier to work amongst young people”.
His report said: “At present, the provision of work experience is an afterthought for many schools. Students are often told to find their own placements. Unsurprisingly, those without strong networks and connections are more likely to miss out.”
The review author said the “first rung of the career ladder has thinned” and is now “simply out of reach” for many young people.
He added: “That places them in a hopeless catch-22 where employers ask for work experience but the opportunities for young people to gain it have narrowed or gone.”
The Department for Work and Pensions said the 300,000 placements will comprise of work experience and what are known as Sector-based Work Academy Programmes (Swaps).
The latter are short government-funded programmes for jobseekers claiming benefits, offering training, hands-on experience of the workplace and a guaranteed job interview, the department said.
Minister insists Labour not committed by manifesto to applying national living wage to all over-18s before next election
Good morning. Last night Alan Milburn suggested that he would like the government to drop its commitment to pay all people over the age of 18 the national living wage. The former Labour health secretary was speaking after he published a major report on the rise in the number of young people not in education, employment or training (Neet) and he implied that when the final report is published in the autumn, with policy recommendations, it will propose changes to the national living wage/minimum wage system to encourage more firms to hire young people. A change to the “discriminatory age bands” policy seems to be quite high up his list of demands.
For the record, this is what Labour said in its manifesto.
Labour will also make sure the minimum wage is a genuine living wage. We will change the remit of the independent Low Pay Commission so for the first time it accounts for the cost of living. Labour will also remove the discriminatory age bands, so all adults are entitled to the same minimum wage, delivering a pay rise to hundreds of thousands of workers across the UK.
The TUC said yesterday that cutting the minimum wage for young workers would be a mistake – setting the scene for a fierce Labour internal battle over the manifesto pledge.
This morning, in an interview on the Today programme, Torsten Bell, the pensions minister, hinted that Milburn may get his way. Milburn, the TUC, and everyone else who has read the manifesto, probably assume that, when Labour said it would “remove discriminatory age bands”, it meant by the end of this parliament.
But it didn’t, Bell claimed. He said:
The manifesto sets out that the we should move the rates together over time. It doesn’t set a timeline on that because that’s the important role of the Low Pay Commission.
When the presenter, Justin Webb, said put it to Bell that people understood that as meaning by the end of this parliament, Bell replied:
No, that’s not what it says in our manifesto, Justin. But it’s an understandable mistake. It’s a long document.
Webb asked him to confirm that Labour is not committed to equalising the rates by the end of this parliament. Bell replied:
The manifesto commits us to equalising the rates. We’re absolutely committed to doing that. I’ve been a big proponent of the minimum wage over the last 25 years …
We’re going to do it in a way that relies on the Low Pay Commission to provide independent advice on how that can happen, and in general how increases in the minimum wage happen but in a way that doesn’t affect employment levels.
And if you look at what the Low Pay Commission said in their annual report, they didn’t find evidence that previous increases in the minimum wage for young people had had an effect on their employment. But it is right that we stay alive to that. It’s right that we keep looking at the evidence.
Asked again if the government was committed to the pledge, Bell said:
I’ve already said the answer is yes, we’re committed to our manifesto that we stood on and we will deliver it. But that manifesto did not set out the timeline.
Milburn is likely to be more happy about this answer than the trade union movement.
At the moment it looks as if it will be a relatively quiet Friday. Pat McFadden, the work and pensions secretary, is on a visit this morning, and Nicola Sturgeon, the former Scottish first minister, will be at the Hay literary festival this afternoon. But last night Keir Starmer and Andy Burnham both published long and interesting responses to Tony Blair’s critique of the Labour government. Peter Walker wrote a story about them here.
But there is more to say about the Starmer and Burnham essays, and I will be having a detailed look at them shortly.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (between 10am and 3pm), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
