to remind people that the minimum wage was introduced by the Labour Government - and all the Tories have done is rebrand it as the Living Wage

[cakeorwine]

National Minimum Wage Act 1998 - Wikipedia

The Living Wage - which is the minimum pay someone who is 23 or above can get is going up to £11 an hour.

Jeremy Hunt to confirm national living wage to rise to £11 an hour - BBC News[

""Since we introduced [the national living wage], nearly two million people have been lifted from absolute poverty," Mr Hunt is expected to say.
"That's the Conservative way of improving the lives of working people. Boosting pay, cutting tax."
"

Excuse me - you rebranded the minimum wage, so don't take any credit for introducing it.

I do wish someone would pull the Conservatives up on this when they try to take credit for it.

The point is that if you listen to PMQs and other Government responses, they say they are brilliant for introducing the National Living Wage.

"Look at us, aren't we good, we introduced the National Living Wage"

As has been pointed out, the real living wage is different to the National Living Wage.

The National Living Wage is the National Minimum Wage with age bands.

Also - as has been pointed out, is it a living wage?

So when the Government say how good they are for introducing it, they need reminding that they just took the National Minimum Wage and gave it age bands.

Yep

Really? the Tories opposed Labours plans...

A three-day debate on the second reading of the Bill was held in Parliament from 30th April 1946. The Tories objected to the Bill on the grounds that it would lead to a possible future full-time salaried service for doctors, and was a threat to the patient-doctor relationship. They claimed it undermined local government, and wrecked the voluntary hospital system

What a hotch potch series of excuses..... they wanted to keep the Voluntary Hospital System.... now called Private Hospitals... well, it may taken them a few years but they, in the end, got what they wanted.

The Tories opposed the NMW on the grounds it would increase unemployment, they continued to voted against every single increase in the wage throughout Blair and Browns period in office & whilst in office have very often bought in a smaller increase than recommended & delay implementing the increase....

So what if the NMW has risen from 11k to 20k ? if you re not better off overall? rents have trebled in that period.... and housing benefit frozen at 2019 levels.

RandomButtons · Today 00:05

Why does it matter when the basic lowest income has nearly doubled in less than 12 years? Credit where credits due, they’ve done right in this one. Who cares what it’s called or who first started it.

This!

Are you saying the other parties don’t take credit for stuff they haven’t done?

My memory is that the Govt Minimum Wage was really low, especially impossible to live on in London. Trade Unions campaigned and Cameron Govt introduced National Living Wage. That first year of the change meant a meaningful step up.

You should look at it from other angles. Why does an adult aged 23 deserve to earn more money than one aged 22? Why should someone be expected to take a more senior role when other people on NMW/NLW take home a similar amount of pay?

Ultimately the tories now like this policy because they so rarely move the thresholds for other things like universal credit and child benefit which means that people on NMW/NLW can end up worse off after tax if they're not careful. I've worked with home carers who've had to turn down work because of the potential impact on their tax credits. Especially because tax credits are calculated based on last years income and they know if they go over they will struggle to pay them back next year.

Tory manifesto policy was to oppose the NMW until what... 2010? I think Cameron finally embraced it.

Tories also openly opposed existence of NHS until 1960 IIRC.

There's an argument that Labour loses elections but wins the policy battles.

Isn't the main reason for low UK productivity our anti-immigrant policies? Lots of people left labour market because they could afford it. UK could important more immigrants to replace those lost workers, but this is staunchly opposed. So solution is to try to "coax" the recently retired back into workplace.

So much for Tories as party of personal freedom & free market economy, right? Should have recalled it was market that rejected Trussonomics, her wing don't accept market economics there either.

“The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them.”

The Conservatives were opposed to the NHS in the form proposed by Labour as it was unaffordable … it quickly had to be scaled back from the “everything free” model when it was introduced. I think the NHS is shit and has been shit for the whole of my 47 years of life. Maybe a different system would have served the country better, such as a European co pay system. If the NHS wasn’t such a political hot potato then maybe we’d get a fit for purpose system. I cannot stand this “they thought of it first” attitude. Who the fuck cares as long as it’s a positive thing.

It was £6.70 NMW.
It then became £7.20 for National Living Wage for people aged 25 or more but remained at £6.70 for anyone aged under 25

National Minimum Wage: previous rates | nibusinessinfo.co.uk

So the amount is going up and that’s not to be thought good?

Given the incredible level of state dependency atm making it more beneficial to work makes sense

The modern iteration of the minimum wage was largely down to Labour but there’s a long history. This article gives background and its authors were involved in Labour movement discussions.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00729.x

That is not what this thread is about.

And the Tories fought hard against its introduction.
Likewise the NHS

I’m sure you would prefer it not to be

I didn’t realise it was happening until your thread, sounds good though

@cakeorwine Thanks for details, I remember about it, we were in London at the time. Cleaners were even paid below NMW in some surprising buildings.

“The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them.”

The Tories against the NHS in the form implemented by labour (which quickly had to be scaled back). There are other options than the NHS for affordable health care and, interstingly, they seem to work better in other countries. The NHS doesn’t work and is unaffordable…

The point is that we were always going to have a public healthcare system in some form post-second World War. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Yes, it is happening.

Going from £10.42 to £11 an hour

So an increase of 5.5%

Less than inflation

The living wage is not the minimum wage with age bands - the living wage itself is not banded (the minimum wage still exists for certain age groups)
The Living Wage is a legal requirement for workers aged 25

There were two bands when NMW was introduced which extended to three bands whilst under Labour
Under the Conservative & Liberal coalition the apprenticeship band was introduced making it four, and under Conservatives the NLW was introduced

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c9e0e72e5274a527faae38a/20_years_of_the_National_Minimum_Wage_-_a_history_of_the_UK_minimum_wage_and_its_effects.pdf

The difference between NLW and NMW is that the minimum is the legal minimum wage that can be paid to an individual, it is not intended to be the amount that is required to live independently. People may be supported by family or eligible for benefits
The minimum living wage is higher than NMW as a metric of the minimuM an individual needs to live ‘independantly’ (though can still be low paid and eligible for benefits)

Minimum wage of was uplifted to the living wage

@cakeorwine this thread has provoked some debate, although I am of the opinion (like others above) that every political party 'borrows' ideas from the opposition and claims them as their own. Both Labour and Conservative have done this, so I think you are probably on a hiding to nothing with this particular instance.

Personally, I am aggrieved by the blatant lies, and not even trying to stick to manifesto pledges. Sadly, I don't have much confidence in Starmer, albeit he can't possibly be as bad as the current shower. To say that I feel politically homeless is an understatement.

I guess we just have to blame it on the boogie.

This is a silly post. Who cares who introduced it 🤷‍♀️ It’s not enough for people to live on and that’s that.

Yanbu. Labour introduced it, and it applied to everyone over 21. The gap between the lower rate for 18-21 & the main rate was only 20%.

The tories rebranded it, made it so only people over 23 get it, and have slowly supressed the rate younger people so that there's now almost a 40% gap between what an 18 year old is entitled to vs a 23 year old.

This has the effect of incentivising employers to avoid hiring older people, in favour of teenagers who can be paid far less.

Surely the minimum wage is legally the lowest amount you can be paid. Living wage should be enough to live and not need uc. Uc is topping up minimum wage to living wage but instead of the employers claiming it the employees are.

Living wage should be enough to live and not need uc

But what size family, where and to what standard?

Imagine a family of two shift workers with 3 preschoolers who live in a high cost area who eat a MN approved diet of organic protein and unlimited fruit and vegetables, holiday at Ikos, heat the house to 24 C, wash everything after one use and tumble dry it, and all shower twice a day.

They'd need to earn £100k+ and even then might not cover the expenses hat they see as basic essentials.

I agree, governments should not claim the accolade for things other people have done, they should also take responsibility for shit decisions that have cost us millions, and admit when they have lied to us so 'spun' the truth so far its no longer credible. But this is politics and we cannot expect miracles. We should expect the media to call them out regularly and keep them on their toes. Both seem to be failing at the moment.

Why have they done this? Is it because they have increased interest rates to a point where people cannot afford to eat and have a roof over their heads. So now they have to force wages up to stop people being homeless and hungry. The net gain for the individual is nothing. The net loss for business in additional costs is huge and, would you look at that the net benefit is for the government who are raking in more in taxes. Which I would not have a problem with if those additional gains were going into schemes that benefit the public. But they wont that money will go into paying off government dept. that has accrued due to stupid government decisions over decades that have gone unchallenged by the media who seem to have no interest in government idiocy and corruptions.