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.

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?

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.

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.

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 11:41:36

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).

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.

Mollygo Sat 19-Oct-24 11:37:36

Do some think SAHMs do just that, btw? Just stay at home and don't have any other interests at all?
Everyone is different. The SAHM’s I met often still had children at home, but even they filled their lives with housework, gym, coffee with friends, running, and, for the few Homeschoolers I know, planning workout activities or meet-ups for their children.
Some undoubtedly would have had
lives . . . dominated by their home and children and had no other topics of conversation
But equally, some working mums have conversations that simply reflect what’s going on at their work-though they may also be fixated on their children.

eazybee Sat 19-Oct-24 11:27:46

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.

growstuff Sat 19-Oct-24 11:25:25

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.

growstuff Sat 19-Oct-24 11:22:17

Iam64

growstuff - we seem to have had similar experiences with young children. Mine are nearly 40 now and like yiu, reading some nonsense here makes me amazed they survived (and thrived)
Children aren’t dumped with strangers. They’re gradually introduced to their nursery or childminder. In nurseries, they have a named key worker.
Doodledog’s comment about the difficulty discussing politics on gransnet resonates with me

I can't remember if my children had a keyworker. I do know that when they started, they were in rooms of six babies and there were always at least two adults with them. When I picked them up, there was always time to have a chat with a staff member about what they had been doing during the day and I could read the log book.

Anniebach Sat 19-Oct-24 11:21:54

Quote Casdon Sat 19-Oct-24 11:00:28
This is the only recent study I could find.
hrnews.co.uk/98-of-women-want-to-come-back-to-work-after-maternity-leave-but-only-13-say-its-viable/
My experience is different to eazybee’s in that my daughter’s generation who I know do all want to return to work after maternity leave, although frustrated by the barriers they experience. They are all career girls though, having babies in their late twenties and early thirties, and the wishes of young women who don’t have careers of their own may be different of course.

In my family and among friends, were both working / Stay at home mothers, careers nothing to with it.

Allira Sat 19-Oct-24 11:21:06

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?

growstuff Sat 19-Oct-24 11:15:50

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).

Doodledog Sat 19-Oct-24 11:13:21

Allira

^Do what you like, but don’t expect others to subsidise one lifestyle choice over another^.

?? So tax credits, nursery vouchers are not subsidies whereas giving a few years worth of pension credits while someone stays at home to look after their young children are?

The logic escapes me.

It’s not a few years. It is until the youngest child is 12, which could easily be 20 years.

And tax credits go to all working people on low wages. Nursery vouchers are not the panacea they claim to be either, and they don’t just go to working parents - they can be used to get the children out of the way so mums can go for coffee or get their hair done (or, Heaven forfend, their nails).

As I say, I don’t care what others do. We all do what’s right for us. I repeat (probably pointlessly) that I am not criticising anyone for their choices. I am giving my opinion, which is that when cutbacks abound 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.

growstuff Sat 19-Oct-24 11:13:09

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.

growstuff Sat 19-Oct-24 11:10:00

Oreo

Casdon

This government isn’t saying that Oreo. What they are saying is that they will improve provision to make it easier for women to work if they choose to. The evidence is that the vast majority of women do want to return to work, but many can’t because there is insufficient and inflexible provision.

I don’t think it’s for our generation to tell young women what they ‘should’ do, we’ve had our time, and we have to respect that their choices are not ours.

Oh they wouldn’t listen to us, that’s true enough, but would they listen to those who run classes for pregnant Mums, midwives and anyone else connected to parenting classes?I think they just assume they should go back to work as being a SAHM feels somehow out of date.Once you eliminate those who can’t pay the rent and simply have to work all the rest is just a choice made.

I know somebody who has written a number of books about parenting and runs parenting classes. She sees no reason why both parents shouldn't work and doesn't get involved in party politics, although she has been asked for input from policy makers.

growstuff Sat 19-Oct-24 11:04:43

Allira

^Do what you like, but don’t expect others to subsidise one lifestyle choice over another^.

?? So tax credits, nursery vouchers are not subsidies whereas giving a few years worth of pension credits while someone stays at home to look after their young children are?

The logic escapes me.

The devil is in the detail. Try comparing what is actually paid. Meanwhile, working parents are contributing to the economy and there's very little evidence that their children suffer.

growstuff Sat 19-Oct-24 11:00:39

Freya5

Oreo

Allira

If parents go back to work full-time, it's a long old day for tiny tots who are dropped off at nursery first thing in the morning and not picked up until about 5.30 or 6.00 pm.

All very well for the mother who wants to stay on the career ladder, but what about the child?

It’s a sad state of affairs isn’t it?

My daughter , a single Mum, after marriage breakdown, had no choice . Both children to nursery, attached to local Primary school, as she wanted to keep working to pay bills mortgage etc. Father's input was a pittance. Now years on, both children happy, well adjusted, and GG goes to same nursery. Job well done from nursery. So don't knock it. Needs must .

Well done to your daughter! It's bloody hard, but in that situation it's the only choice - in fact, there is no choice, unless you want to rely on meagre benefits. That's why it's so important that nursery provision is high quality.

Casdon Sat 19-Oct-24 11:00:28

This is the only recent study I could find.
hrnews.co.uk/98-of-women-want-to-come-back-to-work-after-maternity-leave-but-only-13-say-its-viable/
My experience is different to eazybee’s in that my daughter’s generation who I know do all want to return to work after maternity leave, although frustrated by the barriers they experience. They are all career girls though, having babies in their late twenties and early thirties, and the wishes of young women who don’t have careers of their own may be different of course.

Allira Sat 19-Oct-24 10:53:34

Do what you like, but don’t expect others to subsidise one lifestyle choice over another.

?? So tax credits, nursery vouchers are not subsidies whereas giving a few years worth of pension credits while someone stays at home to look after their young children are?

The logic escapes me.

eazybee Sat 19-Oct-24 10:50:57

It was Amol Rajan who said' the main aim is to get mums back to work, but Phillipson didn't correct him. My experience is that mothers of very young children do not want to go back to work but they are scared of losing their job if they do not, and they really do need the money.
I notice that teachers who worked through full-time following childbirth are now aiming to retire at 55, mortgage paid, children educated and working, and also because they are sick of the increased expectations in education of taking on social work responsibilities.

Doodledog Sat 19-Oct-24 10:44:02

ronib

Iam64 fyi my 3 year old gs did not have a key worker and was not given a gradual introduction to a very full day at his nursery.
I am sorry that his experience was unsatisfactory. This site could be a valuable resource for exchanging information - a lost opportunity it seems.

Genuine question- where and when do you think that opportunity was lost on this thread?

Anyway - I am sick of saying that I don’t have the faintest desire to tell others how to organise their family lives. All I keep saying is that paying those who can afford to stay at home to do it is not fair to those who can’t (or who simply make different choices). Women who work are often short of pension contributions because of low wages and historical sexism, whilst those who were at home whilst their children were out at school are better off - how can that be right? Looking after babies is one thing. Staying at home when a 12 year old is at school is another, yet pension contributions are made, and child benefit is far more likely to go to single earner families than to those where both parents pay in and they have to find childcare costs, commuting etc (and still bring up their children after school, the same as those who were at home all day).

Do what you like, but don’t expect others to subsidise one lifestyle choice over another. Whenever I say that the reaction is akin to if I’d suggested the slaughter of the innocents.

I try hard not to bring anecdotes about my personal life on here, as they are just that, and these discussions go better when kept to policies and principles, IMO.

Personal comments about ‘dumping babies on strangers’ really don’t help, on here any more than they would in ‘real life’.

Sorry if that’s a bit garbled - I’m multitasking-grin

Oreo Sat 19-Oct-24 10:22:22

Allira

Oreo

I don’t believe any government should be saying let’s get Mums back to work or similar.

This government isn’t saying that Oreo

It's more an opinion on here, I think, Oreo.

😁

Oreo Sat 19-Oct-24 10:21:01

Casdon

This government isn’t saying that Oreo. What they are saying is that they will improve provision to make it easier for women to work if they choose to. The evidence is that the vast majority of women do want to return to work, but many can’t because there is insufficient and inflexible provision.

I don’t think it’s for our generation to tell young women what they ‘should’ do, we’ve had our time, and we have to respect that their choices are not ours.

Oh they wouldn’t listen to us, that’s true enough, but would they listen to those who run classes for pregnant Mums, midwives and anyone else connected to parenting classes?I think they just assume they should go back to work as being a SAHM feels somehow out of date.Once you eliminate those who can’t pay the rent and simply have to work all the rest is just a choice made.

Allira Sat 19-Oct-24 10:18:50

Oreo

I don’t believe any government should be saying let’s get Mums back to work or similar.

This government isn’t saying that Oreo

It's more an opinion on here, I think, Oreo.