Gransnet forums

News & politics

What has Labour done in the first 100 days?

(432 Posts)
Whitewavemark2 Sat 12-Oct-24 06:07:39

A round-up - curtesy of the Guardian.

Economy
One of Rachel Reeves’s first actions as chancellor was to stand in front of the Commons and accuse the previous government of leaving a £22bn hole in this year’s public accounts. Every year, government spending diverges slightly from what was budgeted, but this was an unusually large amount, driven both by the higher-than-expected costs of housing asylum seekers and public sector pay deals.
Reeves’s solution to this was to put an immediate halt to various projects, including the road tunnel under Stonehenge and the A27 Arundel bypass. Boris Johnson’s promise to build 40 new hospitals has also been placed under review, with the prime minister, Keir Starmer, accusing his predecessor of making the promise without allocating the money.

Energy
When Michael Gove was asked at Tory conference to name the most effective Labour cabinet ministers so far, one of those he listed was Ed Miliband. The energy secretary has returned to a post he last held 14 years ago with a flurry of activity.
On 8 July, the first Monday after winning the election, Miliband announced he was removing the previous government’s de facto ban on onshore wind power. A day later, Reeves, unveiled the national wealth fund, a £7.3bn scheme designed to invest in green infrastructure such as clean steel and carbon capture.
Later that month, Miliband brought forward a bill to set up Great British Energy, a nationally owned energy production company that the government has put at the heart of its net zero strategy. The bill gives the company power to produce and distribute clean energy and spend money on energy efficiency schemes.
Keir Starmer announced in his Labour conference speech that GBE would be based in Aberdeen.

Transport
The first bill to pass the Commons under the Labour government was the rail nationalisation bill. The bill automatically brings rail networks back under public control once their existing franchise contract is over, or earlier if they breach their contracts.
The transport secretary, Louise Haigh, has also passed a bill to set up a new company called Great British Railways to manage both the track and the trains service. Some have questioned, however, why the rolling stock is not also being brought under national control.
Last month, Haigh reversed another piece of privatisation in the transport sector, allowing local authorities across England to run their own bus services once more. The transport secretary has also said she wants to make it simpler and easier for local leaders to conduct the franchising process.

Education
Labour has promised that it will introduce free breakfast clubs in every primary school in England, but it is starting slowly. Reeves announced at the Labour conference that 750 English schools would be invited to be part of a pilot programme.

Housing
Labour has promised to liberalise the planning regime and began soon after taking over government, not only overturning the restrictions on onshore wind power but also reimposing population-based housing targets on local authorities.
The Conservatives had given local planners a series of loopholes to avoid meeting those targets, in a move that housebuilders said had hampered new development, pushing housing approvals to a 10-year low.

Other reforms are planned, including making it easier for public bodies to issue compulsory purchasing orders and making it easier to build on green belt land.
Meanwhile, Matthew Pennycook, the housing minister, has introduced a package of renters’ reforms, which passed their second reading in parliament this week, despite the objections of the Conservatives. That package picks up on some of the ambitions originally championed by Gove when he was housing secretary, including bringing an immediate end to no-fault evictions and forcing landlords to make timely repairs to properties.
Campaigners, however, are unhappy that the Labour government has so far not enacted another package of protections for leaseholders, whom they worry are slipping down the government’s agenda. The government has promised to bring in a bill to restrict leasehold and boost the rights of tenants, but has so far not even enacted the measures passed through parliament under the last government.

Employment
Starmer promised that his government would bring forward a package of workers’ rights in his first 100 days, a deadline which was just about met when Angela Rayner, his deputy, published the employment rights bill on Thursday.
Her reforms include giving workers protection from unfair dismissal and paternity leave rights from the first day of their employment, rather than having to wait two years. The bill also bans employers from forcing workers to sign zero-hours contracts and stops them firing staff only to hire them back on lower pay, unless the company is threatened with bankruptcy.
While the bill was published in the first 100 days it will take another two years for it to come into force. Officials and ministers will spend that time consulting businesses and trade unions about the exact measures involved and how to police them.
Some of the pre-election promises have not made it into the bill. There will be no statutory right for workers to switch off outside their working hours, and the government will now consult on having a single status of worker. Unions have long campaigned for a single worker status to replace the distinction between those who are employed and self-employed, in part to tackle exploitation in the gig economy.

Immigration
As promised, Labour has ended the previous government’s Rwanda scheme, which had not sent a single asylum seeker to Rwanda but was already costing the government money. Scrapping it saved more than £2bn over two years.
In its place, Starmer and his home secretary, Yvette Cooper, have introduced a border security command to focus on people-smuggling gangs. However, the prime minister is still trying to sign returns agreements with European countries, agreements that might mean Britain having to accept migrants in return.
Since the election, nearly 12,000 people have crossed the Channel in small boats, slightly fewer than in the same period last year.
Justice
A week after the election, the justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, announced an early release scheme that would see some offenders who had committed less serious crimes leave prison after serving 40% of their sentence. Mahmood blamed the prisons crisis she inherited from the previous government, which had left jails in England and Wales almost entirely full.
The early release scheme was controversial, but its purpose was underlined later in the summer as riots engulfed parts of the country. Speaking to journalists from the Downing Street garden after the riots had subsided, the prime minister described the decisions he had had to make while they were unfolding.
“I shouldn’t be sitting in the Cobra room with a list of prison places across the country on a day-by-day basis, trying to work out how we deal with disorder,” he said. “But that’s the position I was put in.”

Health
If Starmer is to show progress in one public service by the time he goes into the next election, it will have to be the NHS. His health secretary, Wes Streeting, commissioned Ara Darzi, a former Labour minister, to outline the scale of the challenge. Lord Darzi’s report, which was published last month, found that long delays for hospital, GP and mental health services were leading to thousands of unnecessary deaths.
Darzi suggested a range of changes, including focusing more on prevention and making companies pay “health levies” for things such as alcohol and tobacco.

Allira Sat 19-Oct-24 11:39:13

growstuff

Allira

growstuff

eazybee

Introducing Bridget Phillipson to discuss the forthcoming nurseries, Amol Rajan's opening announcement was that 'the main aim is to help women back into work' which I found alarming; I appreciate the comments about ' dumping grounds for kids.' Nurseries' main aim is to aid children's development, and days from 8am to 6pm are too long for young children; I saw them being collected when I was leaving school at 6pm. tired and fretful ( me as well.) I understand needs must, having been a working divorced mother, but I don't like this, 'get mothers back to work' attitude, without any discussion of cost, subsidies, time, arrangements, facilities etc, just 'spare classrooms will be retro-fitted for younger children'; absolutely no mention of the effect on young children.
I found Bridget Phillipson uncommunicative; when asked about teacher retention she snapped, 'they've had a pay rise already'. It will be interesting to see how many of these extra teachers she is able to provide. All aspiration at the moment.
This is a woman with five years work experience, two in local government, three as manager of a home for women in need, then into Parliament where there are excellent child care facilities, even extending into late evening..

When she was working with women in need, maybe she saw that for many women having a reasonably paid job and interests outside the home could reduce their need (and maybe even make them better parents).

I think it's fine and what so many of us did - but putting ourselves before our young children in the pursuit of what we want to do makes me wonder if, for some, a decision to remain childless might be more practical.

Do some think SAHMs do just that, btw? Just stay at home and don't have any other interests at all?

When my children started primary school and I met SAHMs, I certainly came across a few whose lives were dominated by their home and children and had no other topics of conversation.

And I've come across career women whose tired children trailed disconsolately in their wake.

We can all find anecdotes to support an opinion.

it is not reasonable to pay those who can afford to live on one salary to stay at home and do so from the contributions of others.
As someone who did both - SAHM for many years then returned to work part-time, increasing gradually to full-time, and juggled, trying to put my children's needs first, how do I score in the idle-stakes on this thread as someone who was paid for by others to stay at home?

Not sure how I was paid for by others but still.

growstuff Sat 19-Oct-24 11:41:36

eazybee

I am not so sure that the children don't suffer, based on the behaviour of children I taught who had high achieving working parents; biddable, amenable, but little lost souls on occasion.
I wonder if the apparent 98% of women who want to get back to work are the ones who are sending their children to school with un-brushed teeth, not toilet trained, no breakfast or table manners and poor speech. The evidence will show in the way they bring up their own children. I honestly don't know.

That's anecdotal. Equally, I know many children of high achieving parents, who are well-balanced adults.

People haven't discussed the quality of parenting. As a teacher, I came across many badly behaved children with poor speech from families where there had been very little early interaction with anybody outside the family. If the family was dysfunctional, it was more likely that they were the ones who had no breakfast and had un-brushed teeth and unwashed clothes. Even children with working parents spend more waking hours with their parents and are likely to pick up behaviour from them.

My children would laugh at the thought they were ever biddable, amenable or lost souls (and they both have perfect teeth).

Casdon Sat 19-Oct-24 11:43:15

eazybee

I am not so sure that the children don't suffer, based on the behaviour of children I taught who had high achieving working parents; biddable, amenable, but little lost souls on occasion.
I wonder if the apparent 98% of women who want to get back to work are the ones who are sending their children to school with un-brushed teeth, not toilet trained, no breakfast or table manners and poor speech. The evidence will show in the way they bring up their own children. I honestly don't know.

I suspect the parents you describe are the parents who are mentally absent when they are with their children, on their phones all day or obsessed with housework, or whatever. I don’t think parental neglect is related to working/non working, career/job factors, it’s about how people parent.

growstuff Sat 19-Oct-24 11:45:15

Who's talking about 'idle-stakes'? People have talked about parents being selfish for (allegedly) wanting to put their own wishes above those of their children and dumping them on nurseries.

Maybe people should stop judging others and respect what others do for whatever reason.

growstuff Sat 19-Oct-24 11:47:18

Casdon

eazybee

I am not so sure that the children don't suffer, based on the behaviour of children I taught who had high achieving working parents; biddable, amenable, but little lost souls on occasion.
I wonder if the apparent 98% of women who want to get back to work are the ones who are sending their children to school with un-brushed teeth, not toilet trained, no breakfast or table manners and poor speech. The evidence will show in the way they bring up their own children. I honestly don't know.

I suspect the parents you describe are the parents who are mentally absent when they are with their children, on their phones all day or obsessed with housework, or whatever. I don’t think parental neglect is related to working/non working, career/job factors, it’s about how people parent.

I agree. The quality of parenting hasn't been discussed, but is probably even more important than where children spend their days.

GrannyGravy13 Sat 19-Oct-24 11:47:56

Why are we demonising mothers?

It takes two to make a baby and it should take two to raise one.

It is the 21st century and surely it’s a good thing that parents have choices.

Some parents end up as single parents not of their own volition, but by death, divorce, fleeing domestic abuse, who are we (society) to dictate whether or not they should work to keep a roof over their heads or rely on help from the state in order for them to survive and be with their child/ren during what could be a traumatic time in their young lives?

Allira Sat 19-Oct-24 11:48:20

Casdon

eazybee

I am not so sure that the children don't suffer, based on the behaviour of children I taught who had high achieving working parents; biddable, amenable, but little lost souls on occasion.
I wonder if the apparent 98% of women who want to get back to work are the ones who are sending their children to school with un-brushed teeth, not toilet trained, no breakfast or table manners and poor speech. The evidence will show in the way they bring up their own children. I honestly don't know.

I suspect the parents you describe are the parents who are mentally absent when they are with their children, on their phones all day or obsessed with housework, or whatever. I don’t think parental neglect is related to working/non working, career/job factors, it’s about how people parent.

I'd agree with that.

What I'd like to know is - how did the career women on here manage in school holidays if they were at work? Their children would be too old for nursery and holiday clubs run for a limited time and limited hours, usually just in the summer holidays.

Allira Sat 19-Oct-24 11:50:14

GrannyGravy13

Why are we demonising mothers?

It takes two to make a baby and it should take two to raise one.

It is the 21st century and surely it’s a good thing that parents have choices.

Some parents end up as single parents not of their own volition, but by death, divorce, fleeing domestic abuse, who are we (society) to dictate whether or not they should work to keep a roof over their heads or rely on help from the state in order for them to survive and be with their child/ren during what could be a traumatic time in their young lives?

I might be the only one who has mentioned SAH fathers.

Of course, fathers are not always around as you say. Some may be away in the Forces or work away from home for other reasons.

Casdon Sat 19-Oct-24 12:01:38

Allira

Casdon

eazybee

I am not so sure that the children don't suffer, based on the behaviour of children I taught who had high achieving working parents; biddable, amenable, but little lost souls on occasion.
I wonder if the apparent 98% of women who want to get back to work are the ones who are sending their children to school with un-brushed teeth, not toilet trained, no breakfast or table manners and poor speech. The evidence will show in the way they bring up their own children. I honestly don't know.

I suspect the parents you describe are the parents who are mentally absent when they are with their children, on their phones all day or obsessed with housework, or whatever. I don’t think parental neglect is related to working/non working, career/job factors, it’s about how people parent.

I'd agree with that.

What I'd like to know is - how did the career women on here manage in school holidays if they were at work? Their children would be too old for nursery and holiday clubs run for a limited time and limited hours, usually just in the summer holidays.

In the school holidays, our nurseries both took children up to the age of 7. From the age of eight they went to the school holiday club at Easter and in the summer, they could have gone younger, and we took a two week holiday together in the middle. If we were late at work, my friend who had children the same age picked them up from holiday club, which ran from 9am-5pm, otherwise one of us worked early, the other later so we dropped them off. For the one week holidays at half term, and at Christmas, my husband and I split our annual leave so one of us was at home with them. I’d say this is fairly typical - parents find ways to make the system work for them and their children. It’s probably a bit easier for many now because working from home cuts out the time wasted travelling to and from work.

growstuff Sat 19-Oct-24 12:06:25

GrannyGravy13

Why are we demonising mothers?

It takes two to make a baby and it should take two to raise one.

It is the 21st century and surely it’s a good thing that parents have choices.

Some parents end up as single parents not of their own volition, but by death, divorce, fleeing domestic abuse, who are we (society) to dictate whether or not they should work to keep a roof over their heads or rely on help from the state in order for them to survive and be with their child/ren during what could be a traumatic time in their young lives?

Brilliant post!

I'd go further than saying it takes two to raise a child and quote the proverb "It takes a village to raise a child".

Doodledog Sat 19-Oct-24 12:15:15

think it's fine and what so many of us did - but putting ourselves before our young children in the pursuit of what we want to do makes me wonder if, for some, a decision to remain childless might be more practical.
This post is the winner of the Passive Aggressive prize for being insulting because the poster doesn’t have a coherent point to make🙄.

Do some think SAHMs do just that, btw? Just stay at home and don't have any other interests at all?
I don’t care whether people have interests. I don’t spend my time judging others or making assumptions about their fitness as parents - I just don’t think others should pay so that they can indulge any interests they might have. I do suspect, however, based on threads like this one, that children are probably exposed to a more balanced (or less judgmental) set of values when their parents are out in the world.

Anniebach Sat 19-Oct-24 12:27:44

I chose to stay home with my daughters, both grew up to be
balanced and non judgemental, my elder daughter chose to do
the same.

GrannyGravy13 Sat 19-Oct-24 12:28:27

Allira I can only tell you how we managed in the school holidays which was a huge effort by both of us.

We were experts in juggling, activity clubs for those of our brood that were old enough.

If work permitted we would take three weeks off and go away, I worked reduced hours and our indispensable Nanny was an angel, albeit an expensive one.

Oreo Sat 19-Oct-24 13:33:33

growstuff

Oreo

If it’s needs must for Mums to work with a baby or a toddler then that’s it obvs but for many it’s choice.There are two issues here, what’s best for the Mother and what’s best for the baby.
If we’re talking best for the baby it’s having their Mum close to them.

It's best according to you. It's your opinion, but not one that evidence is very clear about.

Go and canvass a few babies then.
Of course it’s best for the baby to be close to Mum and not handed to strangers all day, ditto for toddlers.Different by the age of three when they are pushing the boundaries and enjoy a lot of time with their playmates.
I’m really wondering if all the defensive comments on here are brought about by guilty feelings at having left their tiny tots in nurseries all week long.
If you wanted a baby and can afford to be at home with him/her until the age of at least three then why not do it? If you have to work then I already said it’s a different case.
A single Mum has to, but where there are two parents it’s not hard to decide to either split your time with the baby or one of you, the Mum is best ( from the baby point of view) stays with him/her full time.

Allira Sat 19-Oct-24 13:37:41

Casdon

Allira

Casdon

eazybee

I am not so sure that the children don't suffer, based on the behaviour of children I taught who had high achieving working parents; biddable, amenable, but little lost souls on occasion.
I wonder if the apparent 98% of women who want to get back to work are the ones who are sending their children to school with un-brushed teeth, not toilet trained, no breakfast or table manners and poor speech. The evidence will show in the way they bring up their own children. I honestly don't know.

I suspect the parents you describe are the parents who are mentally absent when they are with their children, on their phones all day or obsessed with housework, or whatever. I don’t think parental neglect is related to working/non working, career/job factors, it’s about how people parent.

I'd agree with that.

What I'd like to know is - how did the career women on here manage in school holidays if they were at work? Their children would be too old for nursery and holiday clubs run for a limited time and limited hours, usually just in the summer holidays.

In the school holidays, our nurseries both took children up to the age of 7. From the age of eight they went to the school holiday club at Easter and in the summer, they could have gone younger, and we took a two week holiday together in the middle. If we were late at work, my friend who had children the same age picked them up from holiday club, which ran from 9am-5pm, otherwise one of us worked early, the other later so we dropped them off. For the one week holidays at half term, and at Christmas, my husband and I split our annual leave so one of us was at home with them. I’d say this is fairly typical - parents find ways to make the system work for them and their children. It’s probably a bit easier for many now because working from home cuts out the time wasted travelling to and from work.

So there were good holiday clubs, and you were able to work flexi-hours? And of course those nurseries which weren't around years ago too!

That makes it feasible but not everyone can do that of course.

I don't think someone on a minimum wage could afford a Nanny, GrannyGravy13 although I have a family member who did.

Oreo Sat 19-Oct-24 13:37:54

Anniebach

I chose to stay home with my daughters, both grew up to be
balanced and non judgemental, my elder daughter chose to do
the same.

As did I with my two DD’s 😃I loved being with them and seeing them grow and do things for the first time, what a lot working Mums must miss. Very happy days.
I suspect grans play a big part in the school holidays for working parents otherwise it’s about being sent to clubs.

Allira Sat 19-Oct-24 13:38:07

Not on a minimum wage, I hasten to add.

Oreo Sat 19-Oct-24 13:40:23

Surely all those clubs and nurseries must cost an absolute fortune?

Allira Sat 19-Oct-24 13:49:39

I don’t spend my time judging others
🤔

rosie1959 Sat 19-Oct-24 13:51:55

Oreo

Surely all those clubs and nurseries must cost an absolute fortune?

They can be expensive especially in the early years I think my daughter paid around £1k a month for 4 days full time I did the other day but this was only about 1/6 of her monthly salary.
Cheaper now she is older holiday clubs are around £25 a day but my granddaughter enjoys the varied activities.
I must admit I found it different than when my children were small but I never went to university and never commanded the sort of salary my daughter does.

Allira Sat 19-Oct-24 14:00:09

Whitewavemark2
"What has Labour done in the first 100 days?"
Charities should criticise the government if they disagree on controversial policies areas such as immigration or the environment, the UK culture secretary Lisa Nandy has said, as she announced plans to restore civil society organisations to “the centre of our national life”
Charities often have to deal with the fall-out from all Governments' decisions and have the experience to make valid points.

Rachel Reeves is expected to extend a “stealth” freeze on income tax thresholds beyond the 2028 deadline set by the previous Conservative government to raise billions of pounds in the budget.
A good idea or not?

Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves are at loggerheads over a major programme of social housebuilding, in the latest sign of cabinet tensions over this month’s budget.
Oh dear.

Is Rachel Reeves the right person as Chancellor for a forward-thinking Labour Government?

Articles from The Guardian is anyone is interested.

Oreo Sat 19-Oct-24 14:07:13

KS is overdoing the ‘the economy is safe with us’ routine if you ask me ( I know nobody did)😁 and RR is doing what he wants for now maybe?
AR is right to pursue a major social housing programme.

Mollygo Sat 19-Oct-24 14:11:21

Is Rachel Reeves the right person as Chancellor for a Labour Government?

Absolutely she is ! She has her eyes firmly fixed on acquiring money from whatever source, to fulfil the expectations of KS.

FriedGreenTomatoes2 Sat 19-Oct-24 14:15:20

Jeremy Hunt isn’t impressed.

Doodledog Sat 19-Oct-24 14:16:14

I’m really wondering if all the defensive comments on here are brought about by guilty feelings at having left their tiny tots in nurseries all week long.

Not in my case - I can think outside of my own 'box', believe it or not. I also see the 'defensive' comments as coming from those claiming that anyone not doing things their way shouldn't have had children, or having 'dumped them on strangers'.

FWIW my husband and I shared care as far as possible (very hard logistically, but we felt it was worth it), and my MIL was delighted to help out when needed, so the children were with a family member most of the time. We used a very part-time nursery the year before each of them went to school to get them used to the social aspects, and had a nanny for the final year before the younger one started school. She wasn't a stranger, FWIW 🙄. She dropped the older one off and collected him from school, took the little one to nursery two mornings a week, and to the playgroup attended by most of her year group on another two mornings a week. The fifth day I worked at home, but was able to cram my commitments into the other four days by working when the children were in bed, and spend the fifth day with my daughter. One of us (ie Mr D or me) was usually home by 4.30, so half an hour or so after the school run. We sacrificed a lot of career progression to do that, but it worked for us.

Not everyone's working patterns/financial situation/professional ambition would allow that pattern to work, which is why I don't make assumptions or be prescriptive about my own particular circumstances - they are no more relevant to others than theirs are to anyone else.

My point, again is that nobody subsidised any of that. We paid the nanny and the nursery from our own wages, and paid our own pension contributions (as well as tax etc and the contributions our work made to society). We made our choices, as others made theirs, but we didn't expect others to pay for it.

I have no problem with paying towards making childcare cheaper for the next generation. It is ruinously expensive, and
there is often no financial advantage for a couple to both work when 50% of their income goes on childcare. I am less keen to pay people for decades to clean their own houses though. Working is not just about the tax - it is about making the economy work for everyone by providing goods and/or services that go towards paying for hospitals, schools, roads etc etc. I don't understand the mentality that allows people to think they should be able to opt out of doing that for years, and still get the use of the things that others have worked for. Taking a couple of years to look after a baby is a different matter, and if people can afford to do that, it's a lovely thing to be able to do.

Others may agree, disagree or get defensive- that's the nature of discussions. But there is no need to be insulting to those who did things differently from you.