Home

News

Votes of the low paid are worth 20p an hour

Former director of CBI ‘to the left of Labour’ on minimum wage question

1 March 2005

New Labour’s last ditch attempt to persuade its core voters that it hasn’t abandoned them altogether continued on Friday with a promise that the minimum wage would rise from £4.85 to £5.05 per hour.

Tony Blair promoted the increase as ‘a powerful symbol of how this country is changing for the good.’

IWCA parliamentary candidate Maurice Leen commented, ‘When a 4% increase in the minimum wage—which in some sectors is seen as a maximum by employers—is described as a “powerful symbol” you can tell that this government is running out of ideas on how to sell it’s neo-liberal policies to an increasingly sceptical electorate.

‘What’s symbolic, however, is that Labour obviously thinks low paid voters will be so grateful for the 20p an hour rise they will forget about the steady anti-working class direction of the party over the last decade or more.’

The chairman of the Low Pay Commission, Adair Turner—former director of the employer’s organisation the Confederaton of British Industry—expressed disappointment that ministers had rejected the recommendation that 21-year-olds should receive the adult rate.

Instead the rate for those aged 18-21 will increase to £4.25 while the rate for 16-17 year-olds will stay at just £3.

‘Even the former head of the CBI is to the left of Labour on this issue. Those 18 and over are adults and may have a family to support, as may some younger workers. There is no excuse for such a low rate,’ said Maurice Leen.

Research carried out by MORI for the GMB union has showed that most Britons regard £6 or over as a ‘living wage’.

In the London Mayoral election last year the IWCA manifesto called for a minimum wage of £7.32 an hour for the capital, based on the official European Decency Threshold. In other parts of the South East, such as Oxford, living costs are almost as high so there is clearly a need for something close to this.

Labour ‘short-changing voters’

Earlier this month the prime minister unveiled Labour’s six key election pledges—a set of vague slogans rather than specific commitments.

Unveiling the first pledge, ‘Your family better off’, Tony Blair spoke of the need to help first-time homebuyers—a startling issue to mention given that house prices have almost tripled since the Labour government first came to office.

According to The Guardian (11 February 2005), Labour also promised that by 2005 to 2006, households would on average be £800 a year better off than in 1997.

‘Labour seems to be short-changing voters,’ said IWCA parliamentary candidate Maurice Leen, ‘An extra £800 is not a great deal after almost ten years.

‘At best, the government’s promised increase equates to households being £2 per week better off each year.

‘We are constantly told that under Gordon Brown the UK has enjoyed the longest sustained period of economic growth since records began but what has the ordinary working class family got out of this?’

The £800 is, of course, just an average, with some households doing better and some doing worse.

Figures from the Office of National Statistics show that the top richest 1% in the UK had more than doubled their assets to £797 billion between 1996—the last full year of Conservative rule—and 2002. During the same period the least well-off 50% of the population saw their share of wealth fall from 7% to 5%.