Live webchat with Rachel Reeves, Labour shadow for work and pensions; THURSDAY 26 FEBRUARY 11.30-12.30

[RowanMumsnet]

We’re pleased to say that we’ll be welcoming Rachel Reeves MP to MNHQ for a webchat on Thursday February 26 at 11.30am.

Rachel is the MP for Leeds West, and Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; among other things her brief includes the ‘bedroom tax’ (also known as the ‘removal of the spare room subsidy’ or ‘under-occupancy penalty’), which she has said Labour will abolish.

Before becoming an MP, she worked as an economist for the Bank of England, the British Embassy in Washington and at Halifax Bank of Scotland. Her second child is due in June and there was some controversy earlier this week when she announced her intention to take maternity leave should Labour form the government after the General Election in May.

Please join us on Thursday at 11:30 if you can; as ever, if you can’t join us live, then leave your question on this thread in advance. (And please remember our webchat guidelines.)

Thanks
MNHQ

I'm in this position and feel it's a totally forgotten group of voters by all

Sick of being constantly hit by tax rises, when we've got big student loans and debts to pay back and we get no help from anyone, can't even buy a home because we don't have the huge deposit we need as first time buyers

it is

Ihategeorge, not quite your exact point but...

Note the point about "Mansion Tax" being not applicable where "no one has an income of more than £42,000 per year."

So a sole earner on just over 42K with financial dependents will be worse off than a two income couple with income at 84K.

But most zero hours workers DON'T work regular hours. That's the whole problem!

This is the thing kat, I know plenty of families with a higher rate tax payer who can't afford to buy a house. We are the group which all governments love to clobber. Well, I still don't know who to vote for after this, but at least Rachel was honest. Spoiling ballot paper beckons again I think!

@funnyossity

Ihategeorge, not quite your exact point but...

Note the point about "Mansion Tax" being not applicable where "no one has an income of more than £42,000 per year."

So a sole earner on just over 42K with financial dependents will be worse off than a two income couple with income at 84K.

We are talking about the top 0.5% of properties in the UK, worth more than £2m. I do think it is right that the wealthiest people in our country are asked to pay more in tax, particularly when there have been so many cuts to public services.

What you need to do is ban zero hour contracts, create jobs that pay at least a minimum wage, with a proper contract with proper employees rights.

Let me guess, you would also reverse the fact that an employer can just sack someone for up to 2 years for virtually no reason ?

Would you ? Or would you just change it a little bit ?

Again, funny, it's the family with one HRT payer who gets hit again, not that I'll ever be in a position to pay mansion tax in a million years

I suspect a Malcolm Tucker / Nicola Murray moment coming up, MrsV.

The thing is, not all HRT tax payers live in mansions. Most of the ones I know have been lucky to scrape together the money to buy an ex local authority house or they're still renting. Believe it or not, most of us are not actually rich.

Line

Yep.

@ClaireZest

Hi Rachel

Could you please tell us what workplace pension provision Labour will propose for nannies and their employers?

I work closely with parents who employ nannies and a lot of them are concerned that employment costs will rise dramatically if the Automatic Enrolment workplace pensions regulations will continue to apply should we see a change in government.

Many thanks.

I think it is right that people who are working get access to workplace pensions and that people who employ people contribute to that. We legislated for it when we were previously in Government and it is being rolled out at the moment. By 2017 if you employ a nanny then you will pay towards their pension (the contribution is about 3% of their salary above the NI threshold). They will also pay in and they will get some tax relief as well.

Oh well, that's a shame. Genuine floating voter in a marginal constituency and no politician will so far will answer any of my questions - too awkward? Running out of people to vote for here as every time the leaders open their mouths on TV, they seem to be on a mission to lose my vote. Actually, that probably means they're best off not answering - ha ha! Wonder if anyone from traditional parties will knock my door this year - they all seemed pretty upset on social media when UKIP won our council seat...

Thanks for your response. The principals you state sound laudable. I think that political debate we see in the media is too often back and forth surrounding policy detail or petty attempts to discredit or ridicule individuals. Labour has been particularly bad at vocalising the ethos at its core and stating clearly how this is different from other parties and how it will be put into practice if elected.

Are there any plans to introduce greater regulation in the private rental sector, like we see in Scotland? For example, banning upfront fees.

@nannynick

Increasingly seeing parents wanting a nanny to be self employed. Nannies should have same employment rights as anyone else. Many nannies are young women, so will Labour make employment status rules easier/simplier and tighten up on employers including domestic employers who feel the rules should not apply to them?

As I said previously, I think it is right that people who are working get access to decent workplace pensions and that their employer pays in. And that people in work have rights at work.

We've already said that we will crack down on bogus self-employment in construction and I think it is right to do it elsewhere if people are being wrongly classified as self-employed.

I like unrestrictive zero hour contracts. Very useful in temping jobs, I get to choose if I take work or not but still get employment rights.

Much better than an employer claiming all their staff are self employed contractors. Who are paid a fee decided by the employer, do work at a time and place decided by the employer. Employer has the control but gets away with not having to provide statutory rights like paid holiday, SMP, SSP.

Surely supply teachers are employed by an agency? They don't come under zero hours contracts do they? Agency work has always been of that nature.
Citizens employed directly by companies with zero hour contracts. That is what we're talking about. That is morally indefensible and a smokescreen to avoid giving people employment rights.

I was engaging with Ihategeorge's point about single earners with children having an unfair burden of tax compared with dual earning families.

@Dove79

Re increasing paternity leave/pay - why should this weekly figure be greater than that offered to women via SMP? I thought we had an equal 'pay' act?

Men would get £260 a week or 90% of their previous average earnings, whichever is lower.

Women get 90% for the first six weeks and statutory maternity pay after that. Women would continue to get more than men under these proposals.

funny, that's because they hate stay at home mothers. They would rather pay you to look after someone elses children, while you pay someone else to look after your children

Thanks everyone for your questions. I have to go now. I am on Question Time this evening so I have to go prepare for that and get to the West Midlands... I hope to be back soon.

Best wishes,

Rachel

Thanks Rachel, good to hear bogus self employment will be cracked down on.
Doubt many mumsnetters work in construction industry, so it certainly needs expanding to other occupations.

Hi just wondering when Gloria will answer my question about self-employment and paternity pay?

Should I check back on this thread later today?

SAHPs go against the economic utility mindset!