George Osborne looks on as David Cameron delivers a speech to business leaders in Manchester. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Osborne falls far short of £7 minimum wage target

The proposed figure of £6.70 fails to meet the Chancellor's aim of restoring the minimum wage to its pre-recession value. 

In a characteristically calculated intervention last year, George Osborne sought to compensate for the Tories' past opposition to the minimum wage by declaring that he hoped the main rate would rise to £7 by 2015-16. "If, for example, the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation it would be £7 by 2015-16, £6.31 at the moment, so that is an increase," he said, with an eye to his party's blue collar wing. "I think we can see an above inflation increase in the minimum wage and do it in a way that actually supports our economy precisely because the economy is recovering and many, many jobs are being created." The Treasury published an accompanying analysis modelling the impact of an increase to £7, lending further weight to the figure (which at the time would have restored the minimum wage to its pre-recession value). 

But it is now clear that Osborne was raising false hopes. The Low Pay Commission, the body that advises the government on the minimum wage, has today published its recommendations for 2015-16 - and they do not include an increase to £7. Instead, the LPC has called for a smaller rise to £6.70 (up from £6.50). The government is not obliged to accept its proposals but Vince Cable, who is formally responsible for this area as Business Secretary, has signalled that ministers will almost certainly not oppose the figure. He said: "I will now study these recommendations and consult my Cabinet colleagues with a view to announcing the final rates in the next few weeks. The Low Pay Commission strike a delicate balance between what is fair for workers and what is affordable for employers, without costing jobs. It does so impartially and without political interference. No government has ever rejected the main rates since it was established fifteen years ago. It is important that it is able to continue to do its work ten weeks before a general election."

Cable is known to have been angered when Osborne floated the figure of £7, believing that the LPC would never approve such a large rise. Indeed, Osborne pre-emptively retreated when the government failed to propose this rate in its final submission to the body. The Chancellor can point out that he maintained at the time that 'the exact figure has to be set by the Low Pay Commission'. But that does not alter the fact that he sought (and won) headlines on his support for a £7 rate. Through this careless act, he has handed Labour political ammunition with which to attack him and ensured that a 20p rise (3 per cent above inflation) will now disappoint expectations. 

Although inflation has fallen significantly, a rate of £6.77 would still fail to restore the minimum wage to its peak value. As the Resolution Foundation noted: "The minimum wage is set to rise by 3 per cent in October 2015, roughly the same percentage by which it rose in October 2014. Last year, the Low Pay Commission described its decision to recommend a 3 per cent increase last year – rising from £6.31 to £6.50 – as reflecting “a new phase” for the minimum wage, following a period in which it had suffered repeated falls relative to inflation. But that lost ground has yet to be fully made up. The Resolution Foundation estimates that an increase of 4.2 per cent to £6.77 would have been necessary to take the minimum wage back to its highest ever value in real-terms, which it held in 2008-09."

To be on track to meet Labour's promise of an £8 minimum wage by the end of the next parliament, the rate would need to rise to £6.78. That means the opposition faces some tough questions of its own: would it have become the first government to overrule the LPC? 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Why Labour's rise could threaten Nicola Sturgeon's independence dream

As the First Minister shelves plans for a second vote, does she join the list of politicians who bet on an anti-Brexit dividend that failed to materialise?

The nights are getting longer, and so are generations. The independence referendum sequel will happen after, not before the Brexit process is complete, Nicola Sturgeon announced yesterday.

It means that Scottish Remainers will not have the opportunity to seamlessly move from being part of a United Kingdom in the European Union to an independent Scotland in the European Union. Because of the ongoing drama surrounding Theresa May, we've lost sight of what a bad night the SNP had on 8 June. Not just because they lost 21 of the 56 seats they were defending, including that of their leader in Westminster, Angus Robertson, and their former leader, Alex Salmond. They also have no truly safe seats left – having gone from the average SNP MP sitting on a majority of more than 10,000 to an average of just 2,521.

As Sturgeon conceded in her statement, there is an element of referendum fatigue in Scotland, which contributed to the loss. Does she now join the list of politicians – Tim Farron being one, and Owen Smith the other – who bet on an anti-Brexit dividend that failed to materialise?

I'm not so sure. Of all the shocks on election night, what happened to the SNP was in many ways the least surprising and most long-advertised. We knew from the 2016 Holyrood elections – before the SNP had committed to a referendum by March 2019 – that No voters were getting better at voting tactically to defeat the SNP, which was helping all the Unionist parties outperform their vote share. We saw that in the local elections earlier this year, too. We knew, too, that the biggest beneficiaries of that shift were the Scottish Conservatives.

So in many ways, what happened at the election was part of a bigger trend that Sturgeon was betting on a wave of anger at the Brexit vote. If we get a bad Brexit deal, or worse, no deal at all, then it may turn out that Sturgeon's problem was simply that this election came a little too early.

The bigger problem for the Yes side isn't what happened to the SNP's MPs – they can undo that with a strong showing at the Holyrood elections in 2021 or at Westminster in 2022. The big problem is what happened to the Labour Party across the United Kingdom.

One of Better Together's big advantages in 2014 is that, regardless of whether you voted for the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats or the Labour Party, if you believed the polls, you had a pretty reasonable expectation that your type of politics would be represented in the government of Britain sometime soon.

For the last two years, the polls, local elections and by-elections have all suggested that the only people in Scotland who could have that expectation were Conservatives. Bluntly: the day after the local elections, Labour and the Liberal Democrats looked to be decades from power, and the best way to get a centre-left government looked to be a Yes vote. The day after the general election, both parties could hope to be in government within six months.

As Tommy Sheppard, the SNP MP for Edinburgh East, observed in a smart column for the Herald after the election, one of the reasons why the SNP lost votes was that Corbyn's manifesto took some of the optimistic vote that they gobbled up in 2014 and 2015.

And while Brexit may yet sour enough to make Nicola Sturgeon's second referendum more appealing on that ground, the transformation in Labour's position over the course of the election campaign is a much bigger problem for the SNP.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

0800 7318496