So disappointed in the Labour manifesto and SME

[flyingvisit]

I feel like the policies are designed to destroy very small businesses. All the focus is on brick and mortar businesses , which are outdated.
If anyone knows any better, please explain it to me?

Are you a member of your local chamber of commerce? Ours doesn't cost much and I think they include free HR advice as part of the package. Haven't used it myself but might be an affordable option?

No, that's the estimated cost of state support to enable 3,000 new private nurseries to open. Help with business planning, start-up grants, etc. They're not planning on opening state-run nurseries.

But will they open? 11k is barely enough to open a small cafe let alone a nursery.

The manifesto is fucking terrifying. Not because of Labour per se but because it confirms we are utterly broke. A political party shouldn’t be costing things worth £5m in a short document outlining what they will do to transform a country of some 70 million people.

Also a small business owner here. I worry for our future under a labour government because of the suggested employment policies. I worry for our young people too - who will employ an 18 month old with no experience when they could hire a 22 year old at the same wage?
Our company will be directly affected by any change in defence spending and labour are tight lipped on this subject. We are normally staunch conservative voters (northern stronghold area) but I just don’t know where to go this time!

re Green - how can we dismantle trident with Putin pointing his weapons everywhere? How can we make university free? Where does the money come from?

Starmer just keeps repeating how broken the country is but can’t actually answer how he plans to change things.

When did politics get so frustrating!

I currently employ a 19 year old who has no experience when she first came to us. We pay her the going rate for her role, which is actually a bit more than the real minimum wage. She is brilliant at her job and no less valuable to us than an older member of staff. I don't really see why young workers should be exploited.

I would add that my dd is 18 and currently gets paid up to £26 per hour for some of the work that she does. Fortunately, her employer doesn't seem inclined to exploit her as a younger worker either.

@LL1991

Starmer just keeps repeating how broken the country is but can’t actually answer how he plans to change things.

Labour know that they'll win just because they're not the Tories, so they don't really need to promise much at all. In fact, the more they promise, the more harm they risk doing to themselves with the usual cries of "how will it be funded?", so just better to offer not much at all and just aim for five years of "steadying the ship" and hoping that the economy grows.

Blair did very similar back in 1997 when he committed to retaining the Tories tax/spending plans for their first term of office. Then of course, it all turned to shit for their second term when the shackles were off and Brown could go on his spending spree!

It's very unlikely that the £11k would be towards the cost of them opening. It would be enabling funding. Paying for help with the business plan to put to the bank to get the loan to start the business. That sort of thing.

Starmer just keeps repeating how broken the country is but can’t actually answer how he plans to change things.

These feels like an odd comment on a thread where we are discussing a few of the very specific things the manisfesto says they will do.

I genuinely don't know what people want over and above an 80 page manisfesto of planned actions.

It's certainly no less than any of the other parties have offered.

Would 11k incentivise anyone to open a nursery? It seems tiny

I run a small business. I think they're a good thing.
I honestly think businesses giving people security (which is effectively what Labour are proposing) will increase productivity

If you can't pay a living wage you shouldn't be employing people.

If you can't pay a living wage you shouldn't be employing people.

Then even more people will be unemployed if the small businesses go bust. The real problem is housing, and increasing the minimum wage by a bit won't help even if all businesses could afford it.

Much better to address the problem through provision of more social housing.

That would also address other costs. I posted an article on another thread a few weeks ago about the effect of insecure and unaffordable housing on health (it related to private renting, not social housing which was found to be as good for health as owned). So the housing issues add to the NHS and social care bill, and also the benefits bill.

I completely agree more about housing. We need systemic change.

No. The. Incentive. Is. The. Guaranteed. Income. From. The. State. Funded. Child. Places.

I think people are seriously underestimating just how badly our economy is doing and the damage that the Tories and in particular this current Tory Govt have done over last 5 years.

Brexit wiped £Billions off our economy and even most conservative of estimates acknowledge this, factor that with £Billions given away to cronies for PPE contracts during Covid and then Liz Truss came along and is 7 weeks managed to damage our economy by further £Billions of pounds.

We are all still paying the price and that is why things will be tough for a long time.

Therefore , as much as i would love Labour to come in and start spending big on public services, NHS, and other important areas, they cannot do so without having to raise taxes or borrow big. In fact no party can as no magic money tree.

Therefore Labour are trying to be sensible and economically competent especially during early years of a Govt. I can assure you the media & Tory press would have slaughtered them if they said we will have to raise taxes to spend big on public services.

Easy for the Greens & Lib Dems to make really eye catching statements about spending big as they know they will never have to actually make the hard decisions when governing.

Just to put into context how employment isn't all "black and white", we recently increased our hourly pay and three people left because it meant they lost their benefit payments/extras associated with same. They also got very annoyed by the pension, and opted out asap.

I agree that the benefits system needs reform - not to bash benefit claimants but to do something about the cliff edges that are built in when you earn over a certain amount. These need to be replaced by tapers that will ensure working more and earning more is always to the worker's benefit. The systems behind UC also need changing so that someone who gets paid twice in a calendar month because of payroll systems doesn't lose all UC and has to start a new claim, because that is just stupid.

But that has happened under the current Conservative government. It has nothing to do with Labour and they may well sort out the cliff edge cut off points

There's a reason why previously vibrant shopping streets are now full of vape and charity shops! This is what it looks like when small businesses aren't viable. Is that what you want??

I didn't notice that in their manifesto. Strange you want to vote on what a party "may" do, even if it's not in their manifesto, especially considering that all manifesto pledges are never honoured anyway.

I didn't say I was voting Labour did I?

agree that the benefits system needs reform

Yes, definitely. Not only tapering. Need to reduce need for benefits and reduce the amount needed.

More social housing would go a long way to addressing that. Even with a slightly increased minimum wage, and even if every single business could afford that without going bust or having to let people go, it still wouldn't be enough to meet housing costs. Unless more social housing was built.

Obviously more social housing would also help (a lot) in addressing the issues with the economy. As I posted yesterday, housing unaffordability and it's consequences affect health. Which then impacts on the NHS and the benefits bill through increased need.

ETA. I found the article about private renting's impact on health (which increases the benefits bill and cost for the NHS).

What’s more, the impact of renting in the private sector, as opposed to outright ownership (with no mortgage), was almost double that of being out of work rather than being employed. It was also 50% greater than having been a former smoker as opposed to never having smoked.

Living in social housing, however, with its lower cost and greater security of tenure, was no different than outright ownership

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/renting-rather-than-owning-a-private-sector-home-linked-to-faster-biological-ageing/

Therefore , as much as i would love Labour to come in and start spending big on public services, NHS, and other important areas, they cannot do so without having to raise taxes or borrow big. In fact no party can as no magic money tree.

It would be worth borrowing short-term to bring about savings later on. Otherwise it's a neverending and worsening circle of false economy.

False economy examples:
Billions is spent on private rent housing benefits, billions on (substandard) temporary accommodation, and because it's often substandard and insecure that costs the NHS loads too.

There's loads of people having delayed healthcare treatment. Consequently they get more ill and are less able to work. So need benefits.

There was a thread from a woman recently who was going to have to give up her job to flee DV to go to a refuge because of the lack of social housing. So she'll have to go on benefits.

Good well-funded public services.
Supportive benefits system (poverty and poor health go hand in hand, which costs the NHS).
More social housing.
Improved child support system (plenty of threads on here where a relatively high earning absent parent is avoiding paying, so the RP needs benefits).
Jobs education and training opportunities.

Investing in the above, across the country, would cost upfront but absolutely pay off through long term savings. Less need for benefits, less demand on the NHS and other public services.

Yes but what specifically?

Labour are going to reform business rates and even things up because online businesses currently have various advantages.

How can you think growth is irrelevant to any business - surely you sell things that you want people to buy, so any increase in wealth generally = more money in the economy = customers with more to spend.

Your posts do not make much sense, really.

What has this to do with the Labour Party - you are blaming the past on them?