Last orders: a pub crawl across the UK's dying booze industry
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Lords accused of trying to block Labour's zero-hours contract ban for ‘bad bosses'
Peers in the House of Lords have been accused of trying to block key protections for millions of workers as they push through major changes to Labour's Employment Rights Bill. The Lords last week voted in favour of several amendments brought forward by Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers which row back on reforms to zero-hours contracts, day-one protections and more. It comes as a blow to the government – which pledged in its 2024 manifesto to end 'exploitative' zero-hours contracts – and sets up a showdown between the Lords and Commons. General secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), Paul Nowak said: 'the sight of Hereditary Peers voting to block stronger workers ' rights belongs in another century. It's plain wrong.' 'They are doing the bidding of bad bosses,' he added, and encouraged the government to 'stand firm.' Under the Lords' amendments, the requirement for employers to offer zero-hours workers a contract would be changed to instead require the worker to ask for the arrangement. Protections against unfair dismissal from day one of employment were also amended, instead bringing the time up to six months. Legislation currently ensures the protections after two years of employment. There were also several amendments to trade union laws voted in, including a requirement for members to actively opt into trade union political funds, rather than opt out. This came alongside another amendment to ensure the 50 per cent turnout threshold for industrial action is not repealed in the bill. The amendments were put forward by Tory peers Lord Hunt, shadow business minister, and Lord Sharpe, alongside Liberal Democrat Lord Goddard. Ministers will address the amendments when MPs return to Commons from summer recess at the start of September. The two houses will then continue to vote on the changes in a process known as parliamentary 'ping-pong' before a finalised version of the bill is agreed upon. Responding to criticism, Lord Hunt said: 'All the evidence shows that workers value and support that flexibility and the diverse job opportunities it continues to create. The world of business – which creates the wealth we need – has repeatedly made it very plain that the Government's proposals go too far and jeopardise that vital flexibility. 'In too many respects the Government's Bill aims to give new powers to the trade unions as organisations, not to the workers themselves, but the Lords amendments would create a better balance. They will protect and create more jobs and serve the working people of Britain well.'
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Millions of workers could lose £18,000 in state pension if they have to wait until 68
Millions of people in their early 50s could miss out on up to £18,000 if the state pension age is hiked to 68 faster than expected, new research reveals. A new Government review of the state pension qualifying age has triggered speculation it might have to rise substantially to contain rapidly rising costs. The state pension is currently worth £230.25 a week or nearly £12,000 a year if you have paid enough National Insurance years to receive the full amount, and it starts at age 66. The qualifying age is already set to rise to 67 between 2026 and 2028, and then the next increase is technically not scheduled until the mid 2040s, which will affect those born from 6 April 1977. The Government is expected to give at least 10 years' notice of a change in the timetable, but it could act straight after the current official review concludes in 2029, according to wealth manager Rathbones. This could mean the rise to 68 is accelerated to 2039-41, which would affect workers now aged 51, 52 and 53, it says. Rathbones has crunched the numbers for future rises under the state pension triple lock, and reckons the annual amount could hit £17,774 in the year someone who is 51 now turns 68. When a 52-year-old is 68 - in 15 years' time - they could miss out on a year of state pension worth £17,340. And someone who is 53 now could lose out on £16,918. That is based on the state pension rising by at least 2.5 per cent a year, which is the minimum increase required under the triple lock pledge - so could easily be higher, unless politically difficult steps are taken to soften the popular guarantee. The triple lock means the state pension increases every year by the highest of inflation, average earnings growth or 2.5 per cent. The Government has promised to stick to the triple lock for the whole of this parliament. Although questions have been raised about affordability the Government has effectively, if not in so many words, told the experts working on the next two state pension age reports to operate under the assumption the triple lock pledge will remain in place indefinitely. How much does a comfortable retirement cost? What YOU will need The Government is required by law to review the state pension age every six years, so it has ordered two reports which will look at when to hike to 68. It will examine this in light of life expectancy, public spending and population trends. But a recent report by independent think tank, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, warned that without reform of the state pension triple lock, the retirement age would have to rise to 74 by 2069. Meanwhile, the Government has launched a new Pensions Commission to try to stop future retirees ending up poorer than older people today. It says nearly half of working age adults are saving nothing at all into a pension - despite the success of auto enrolment into work schemes - and nearly 15million people are under-saving for retirement. Rebecca Williams, a financial planning boss at Rathbones, says: 'With longevity increasing and population pressures mounting, future generations appear set to face a less generous state pension regime than that enjoyed by many of today's retirees. 'The situation appears particularly precarious for those in their early 50s who face a real prospect of missing out.' She says people in their late 40s and early 50s have come to her firm asking for help getting their retirement finances on track, given the shifting goalposts when it comes to pensions. 'The state pension alone is not enough for a comfortable retirement,' cautions Williams. 'Individuals need a broad foundation built on workplace pensions, private savings, and the ongoing support of pension tax relief. 'Cracks are beginning to show in the system,' she warns.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Donald Trump is right to stir up the hornets' nest on North Sea oil and gas
In spite of their relationship being one of the political world's strangest bromances, Donald Trump's claim that Keir Starmer was 'destroying' the North Sea's oil and gas found other targets in his Aberdeen stopover. As a result – and even in their own backyard – he was not averse to letting John Swinney, the First Minister, and Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, know that he didn't think much of their energy policies. That's assuming that any one of those who'll be called to vote in next May's Scottish Parliament elections really knows what Swinney's or Sarwar's definite policy on North Sea oil and gas will be. Both parties have been playing a version of dodgems, ducking and diving all over the place as they constantly seek to confuse the electorate about what the future holds for what the president rightly described as the North Sea's 'treasure chest'. The SNP have been all over the place in relation to energy, while at least with Nicola Sturgeon voters knew where they were. Then, in that ill-fated and completely nonsensical alliance with the sub-Marxist Scottish Greens, the Scottish Government had set its face firmly against more development of oil and gas fields and any still under way would presumably be abandoned. Everything was geared to renewable power – wind, solar and tidal. And definitely no nuclear generation, either – not ever. Swinney has managed to get the SNP off that ludicrous policy for keeping Scotland's lights on, if only by sitting on the fence and stating that they'd no longer ban all North Sea production and instead would consider new licences to drill on a case-by-case basis. I can just imagine the world's oil giants rushing to do business with the Scottish Government with that sort of 'maybe-aye-maybe-no' condition hanging over their development plans. The Scottish Tories are completely onside with the president in being ready to approve many new licences that would help preserve the current well-paid and highly skilled jobs in the North East of Scotland. And it should help them hang onto key constituencies. But it was Scottish Labour that, until fairly recently, looked to have a fair chance of challenging the SNP for the right to form a government next May. That hope, however, almost disappeared thanks to a whole series of own goals by the UK Labour Government over issues such as winter fuel payments and benefit cuts. It remains to be seen whether their Hamilton by-election victory has put new heart into Labour and also whether they now have a policy on North Sea oil and gas that will attract voters. The omens are not good, if the trades union leader Gary Smith is to be believed. The general secretary of the Labour-supporting GMB union has said that the UK Government's energy policy is 'bonkers' as it plans to cut off investment that would help create jobs. In that he was essentially echoing the president's comments. The UK Government is expected to grant permission for the giant new Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North Sea to go ahead as they already have licences approved. But Ed Miliband, the UK Energy Secretary, has repeatedly said no future licences will be granted by Labour – meaning the North Sea sector is in danger of continuing to shed jobs over time. Labour aims to fight the nationalists on the record of Swinney's Government, which in spite of President Trump's nice words about him are nothing to boast about, and neither is his obsession with breaking up Britain. But there are lots of votes in the energy policies of the three main contenders, and currently only the Tories seem to agree with the Trump 'manifesto' on North oil and gas. He was right to stir up that hornets' nest. The electorate deserve clearer answers, especially from Labour.
