Latest news with #Labour Government
Telegraph
a day ago
- Business
- Telegraph
WFH makes us productive, civil servants claim
The majority of civil servants have claimed that working from home makes them more productive, a new poll has found. Seven in 10 mandarins have said that they believe remote working has had a positive effect on Whitehall, according to a YouGov survey of civil servants. Respondents said that working from home had a particularly positive impact on the ability to 'attract and retain talent' as well as on employee satisfaction More than three-quarters of civil servants (79 per cent) said they believed it had a positive impact on employee productivity. YouGov conducted a survey of 101 civil servants about how they felt Whitehall was working, with a particular focus on working from home practices. When asked to suggest a working from home policy they felt most appropriate, half said that Whitehall should mandate one or two days in the office. Nearly a third (30 per cent) believed that the most appropriate policy is to allow all civil servants to work from home as much as they want. The rules for office attendance within the civil service mean that mandarins should spend at least 60 per cent of their working hours in the office or on official business elsewhere. The rule was brought in under the Conservatives, but has continued under the Labour Government. Over half of civil servants also told YouGov that remote working has had a positive impact on public service delivery, and 50 per cent said it had benefitted policy development and decision-making. The demand for civil servants to be working face-to-face with colleagues for three days a week was met with criticism from some civil servants. A survey conducted by the FDA union found that more than three quarters felt an enforced turn to the workplace was not 'beneficial'. Chancellor prefers office Rachel Reeves has previously said that she 'leads by example' in the Treasury by going into the office, claiming that she was 'reaping dividends' from face-to-face working. It comes amid ongoing concerns about the productivity of the public sector, which fell by 0.3 per cent in 2024, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The Telegraph revealed in April that more than 2,000 public sector workers were allowed to work from foreign holidays in order to extend holidays or visit partners abroad. YouGov also found that 59 per cent of respondents to their survey said that the Whitehall civil service is performing well, more than the 40 per cent of MPs who answered similarly in a previous YouGov poll. Last December, the Government awarded a 2.8 per cent pay rise to senior civil servants, along with teachers and NHS staff.
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Reeves abandons inheritance tax raid on grieving military families
Rachel Reeves has abandoned plans to impose new inheritance tax changes on the grieving families of military personnel. The Chancellor has dropped a proposal to tax death in service payments, which are tax-free lump sums given to the families of deceased Armed Forces members. Changes unveiled in the October Budget would have made off-duty death in service payments subject to inheritance tax for the first time, if not going to a spouse or civil partner. It would have meant that children or partners of unmarried servicemen and women would have had to pay death duties on the benefit from April 2027. The Treasury has been forced to abandon the proposals after pressure from Armed Forces organisations, which said the move would have a 'corrosive' effect on trust among servicemen. The Government said that following its consultation, it had decided not to go ahead with the reform. 'Another U-turn' by Labour Mark Francois, the shadow Armed Forces minister, told The Telegraph that he welcomed the decision, 'even though it represents another U-turn by this Labour Government'. He added: 'It was always unfair that married partners of service personnel would be exempted from these changes to inheritance tax liabilities, while unmarried partners, in long-term relationships, would not. 'We highlighted this to ministers, on behalf of service families on multiple occasions and I am pleased for their sake, that common sense has now finally prevailed.' It comes after Ms Reeves's department had to water down proposals to scrap the universal winter fuel payment and reforms to the welfare system. The Government said: 'From 6 April 2027 all death in service benefits payable from registered pension schemes will be out of scope of Inheritance Tax, regardless of whether the scheme is discretionary or non-discretionary.' The HMRC document said that the new plans were 'in line with the broader policy objective of removing inconsistencies in the Inheritance Tax treatment of different types of pension benefits'. Labour 'standing up' for service personnel? Death in service payments are usually a lump sum paid to named beneficiaries of a worker who dies while on the company payroll. It is typically the equivalent of four-times the late individual's salary. For members of the Armed Forces, these are paid whether or not the individual was 'on duty' at the time of their death. Those who die 'on duty' were to continue to benefit from a separate tax-free arrangement on their death in service payments from 2027. But a military worker who dies while technically 'off duty', such as by sudden illness or accident, would have been stung by the proposed inheritance tax rules. Maj Gen Neil Marshall, the chief executive of the Forces Pension Society, told The Telegraph in January that military servicemen and women are unable to put the payment into trust, because they are part of the Armed Forces pension scheme. Labour sought to shore up support from the Armed Forces community at last year's general election, declaring the party would be 'standing up' for service personnel and veterans. The party was successful in winning over voters from military backgrounds, most notably winning in Aldershot, the site of a major garrison, for the first time in more than a century.
Telegraph
22-07-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
Junior doctors' strike to go ahead after talks fail
A five-day strike by junior doctors will go ahead from Friday after talks failed. The British Medical Association (BMA) is pushing for pay increases of 29 per cent, having already secured such a boost under the Labour Government. The walkouts by up to 30,000 medics will be the first national strike by a healthcare union under a Labour administration since the winter of discontent in 1979. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, opened talks with the BMA last week, since when health and union officials have been locked in discussions. Mr Streeting has said the Government will not negotiate on pay, but was prepared to make changes to improve working conditions. But on Tuesday afternoon, the BMA said the strikes would go ahead.
Telegraph
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Votes for 16-year-olds won't improve politics
Extending votes to 16-year-olds at all UK elections must be one of the most short-sighted and desperate measures ever to be brought before Parliament. It is not as if the country were so well governed that we could afford the risk. Yet the Labour Government is embarking on the dangerous experiment of handing power to teenagers who for almost all other purposes are deemed by the law to be children. Worse: like almost all constitutional changes, this one is likely to be irreversible. Perhaps we should not be surprised that a Prime Minister who until recently seemed confused about the biology of sex should also be in a muddle about the physiology of adolescents. It is true that at 16 one may well be physically able to serve one's country, often with conspicuous courage. A handful of prodigies can astonish us with their talents, too. Yet it is no less a fact that the brain continues to develop well into one's twenties. Children of 16 are generally less capable of thinking ahead or of assessing danger than adults. Sir Keir Starmer is untroubled by such realities. For him, apparently, the only relevant criterion is that 16-year-olds may pay taxes. But it does not follow from this that they should be entitled to vote. Otherwise, by the same logic the millions of people who do not pay taxes would lose the vote. Children are represented by their parents in many fields until they reach adulthood. They also require protection: one reason why the age of consent for marriage has been raised to 18 (not that Angela Rayner had noticed). However precocious, a voter of 16 lacks the experience to detect the fools, frauds and fanatics who are unfortunately ubiquitous in politics. No doubt Labour expects that this act of constitutional tomfoolery will favour the party, because young people are assumed to lean to the Left. But this gimmick is no great cause célèbre. Unlike women in the early 20th century, who fought hard for the suffrage, fewer than half of the Welsh 16 and 17-year-olds invited to vote for the Senedd could even be bothered to register. It is no accident that few other countries have lowered their voting age below 18. In Austria, which did so in 2007, the effect has been polarising: the younger the voters, the more attracted they are to extremes, especially on the Right. The beneficiaries have not been the older centrist parties, but the anti-immigration nationalists of the Freedom Party. Here, too, Sir Keir may well find himself hoist by his own petard. What if the newly enfranchised boys and girls reject his bribery and cast their ballots for Kemi Badenoch or Nigel Farage?
The Independent
17-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
What happened the last time a Labour government opted to lower the voting age?
Grappling with economic difficulties including rising prices at a time of accelerated social change and growing concerns about immigration, Harold Wilson's Labour government introduced legislation to lower the voting age. The Representation of the People Act 1969 was a major milestone in the development of modern democracy, as the UK became the first country to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. The Act triggered change elsewhere as other democracies soon followed suit. The economic and social conditions in the late 60s have clear parallels with those facing the current Labour Government, while the announcement of its intention to lower the voting age to 16 has been described as the biggest reform to our electoral system since 1969. Sir Keir Starmer said it was 'important' to lower the voting age, as 16-year-olds were old enough to work and 'pay in' through tax, so should 'have the opportunity' to say how they wanted their money spent. Polling suggests Labour stand to gain the most from reform, with 33% of 16 and 17-year-olds polled by ITV news saying they would back the party, while 20% said they would choose Reform UK and 18% the Greens. Therefore, while ministers will not accept that electoral advantage is a motivating factor for the changes, some opponents may argue that this is the case. Some historians suggest an expectation of a boost in vote share was not a factor in decision making within Harold Wilson's administration at the time. This, it is claimed, was because the voting intentions of younger people were far from clear. But in his history of the Labour Party, Andrew Thorpe claimed the lowering of the voting age was 'less a principled commitment to young people than a piece of gerrymandering based on the assumption that young people were more likely to vote Labour than Conservative'. While today some argue that lowering the voting age will counter political apathy or disenchantment among the young, research by the University of Huddersfield found no evidence that this fuelled demands for reform in the 1960s. It highlighted that there was no significant difference in turnout between young and older voters prior to the 1969 Act, with large numbers of young people joining youth organisations linked with the main political parties. However, amid contemporary concerns about radicalisation, the push for voting at 18 in the 1960s has been linked in part to growing concern that social alienation among the young could lead to 'widespread antidemocratic embrace of either far-left or nationalist causes'. The path to reform was set when the government in 1965 announced that a committee chaired by Justice John Latey would examine at what age individuals are considered an adult. Published in 1967, the committee concluded that young people aged 18 should have adult rights, including owning property and being able to marry without the consent of their parents. The report said: 'This Committee is convinced that we must ensure that the young go out into the world as fully prepared for their adult responsibilities as possible, and that in giving them adult status at 18 we are doing no more than recognising the simple facts.' Some in Harold Wilson's cabinet were against reform, but the matter was resolved in favour of change and the government published a white paper. Some of the subsequent arguments against reform at the time were said to focus on what can be considered the appropriate age of 'maturity' and contained 'assertions over the extent to which young people were competent, sentient humans, capable of voting', according to the University of Huddersfield research. However, advocates at the time echoed arguments regularly heard today under the principle of 'no taxation without representation'. Conservatives repeatedly requested a free vote on the issue, but the Labour government – with an overall majority of 67 – whipped its MPs, suggesting a nervousness over the depth of commitment to reform. The Representation of the People Bill passed into law in July 1969, but by the following year the Labour Party had lost a total of 16 seats in by-elections. The economy was showing signs of improvement, boosting Labour's standing in the polls and prompting Mr Wilson to call a general election. But, in what many observers considered a surprise result, Labour was defeated by the Conservatives led by Edward Heath. In the context of arguments then and now about political engagement and lowering the voting age, it is notable that the 72% turnout at the election was the lowest since 1955. Census data suggested that although about 800,000 newly-enfranchised 18 to 20-year-olds were due to be added to the electoral register for the general election, only 464,000 were actually registered. Lowering the voting age was also considered under the last Labour government led by Tony Blair and later Gordon Brown. Neither leader formally declared a commitment to enfranchising 16-year-olds, but the issue was debated in Parliament and supported by some Labour MPs. However, there was not widespread cross-party backing for reform at the time, with many Conservatives either opposed or unenthusiastic about reform, raising the prospect of legislation facing a difficult passage through Parliament. Competing policy priorities have also been cited as a factor in electoral reform being sidelined, with issues such as constitutional reform, health and the economy taking up political bandwidth. Historians have also referenced concerns over potential controversy due to doubts over public support, while the lack of a prominent campaign for change is said to have prevented votes at 16 gaining momentum.
