Latest news with #WFA
BBC News
30-05-2025
- General
- BBC News
Brighton woman recognised for inspiring growth of walking football
A walking football coach whose East Sussex team attracts more than 50 women has been hailed as a "lynchpin" in helping to grow the Hood founded Brighton & Hove Socialball in 2022 for what she describes as a "lost generation" of women missed out on playing only a handful of players attended the first sessions, the twice weekly sessions in Portslade now attract more than 50 a result, Ms Hood has received an award from the Walking Football Association (WFA) for her role in growing the sport, particularly among women over the age of 40. The 51-year-old began playing football with her father when she was young, but said she did not have the opportunity to play at school."Like many women of my generation, I couldn't play at secondary school or with a local club," she said."I'm so pleased it's different for girls now. Playing walking football allows women of my age to make up for lost time."The national grassroots award recognises the efforts she has made to build the team – all on a voluntary announcing the winners, the WFA described Ms Hood as a "lynchpin" in increasing the number of people taking part in the Hood said she was "humbled" by the added: "This award is as much for the members of the club as it is for me."We like to play well and improve our game, but the most important thing is everyone has fun and enjoys the wonderful game of football."
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The UK is going bust: Starmer and Farage have now guaranteed it
Will nothing save Britain from this collective madness? No data set, however grim, ever seems to shake politicians from their high-tax high-spend complacency. No public-sector performance indicator ever guides them to the rightful conclusion that the state is spending far too much on things we don't need whilst chronically under-investing in those we do. The country is going bust. Our national debt has soared past £2.7 trillion – over 97 per cent of GDP. Servicing the debt is costing £100 billion every year. Our 2025 growth forecast is a paltry 1.4 per cent. We waste precious taxpayer cash on subsidising the arts, renationalising the railways and paying people who could work not to. All the while our prisons descend into squalor, our borders are inadequately policed, our streets increasingly unsafe. Like the gambler hunched over a roulette table, eyes bloodshot and murmuring 'next time I'll win it all back', successive governments have stubbornly refused to exit the casino and sober up. At least in the past there was some political pressure to rebalance or retrench. What's alarming now is that no party seems to be grounded in fiscal reality. Over the course of just three days, Calamity Keir U-turned on the universal Winter Fuel Allowance (WFA) and two-child benefit cap – a policy he previously supported with such fervour that he suspended seven MPs who rebelled against it – and unveiled £7 billion inflation-busting pay rises for public sector workers. This week, Nigel Farage will reportedly attempt to outflank Labour on welfare. And the Tories are chalking up Starmer's decision to partially reinstate the WFA as a win for their party, reminding us that the Conservatives 'never touched the winter fuel payment' during their 14-year stint in government. It's not just our elected representatives, mind you. Surveys have repeatedly shown Brits would prefer fiscal headroom was diverted towards public services than tax cuts, ignoring the 'Rahn Curve', which shows greater government largesse financed by taxes leads to weaker growth. It's the identifiable victim problem writ large: help groups we believe to be 'in need', often inflating our own sense of virtue, whilst giving no consideration to the wider economic picture nor who's footing the bill. And once you start looking for examples of this mindset, they're everywhere. A sermon at my local church on Sunday featured Matthew 19:24: 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God', and a lecture on how Jeff Bezos chooses to spend his money. Amusingly, when the think tank Tax Policy Associates recently polled voters on the amount of additional tax they would personally be willing to hand the Exchequer, a third said less than £10 a year. The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. In the end, the taxman comes for us all. The problem for Starmer is that his credibility is shot. Fears Labour's spending plans could dwarf even their historic tax increases triggered bond market turmoil in January. Now, the Government has handed the WFA back to many people who don't need it and given lots of money to people with large families with no conditions (such as: 'get a job'). In one swoop Labour have more or less raised expenditure by the amount they're going to save by cutting Personal Independence Payments (if they hold their nerve). It hardly signals a willingness to balance the books. Instead, both Labour and Reform seem to believe they can fudge the numbers – the 'iron chancellor' with pretend wriggle room from growth forecasts, or by ditching, as rumoured, the fiscal rules, which have thus far acted as a welcome chokehold on Labour's worst spending instincts. And Farage with 'policies' likely to smash into pieces if they ever get into power. We should take migrants out of hotels. We should stop steaming towards net zero at breakneck speed. But why do Reform believe they will succeed where the Tories repeatedly failed? It never ceases to amaze me that the people who gloated most loudly over the decline and fall of Liz Truss are the very same who pretend there's a magic money tree that can be shaken to meet their many spending demands. Don't reform the increasingly bloated, ineffectual state, they wail; just impose a wealth tax. Even though these have been reversed almost everywhere they have been tried because the cost of administration exceeds the revenues raised. Don't shrink the public sector, they say; just bring capital gains in line with income tax, even though it will disincentivise investment, damage our international competitiveness and create a lock-in effect. To her credit, Kemi Badenoch has refused to make facile promises and is encouraging her party to work hard at some proper, measured proposals on cutting the state's commitments. Her great tragedy is that she inherited a parliamentary Conservative Party in a lamentable condition, packed with 'wets', and which is growing mutinous. On Friday I appeared on a panel with a pleasant, accomplished, well-meaning Tory MP. But he was completely unwilling to robustly challenge the pro-NHS, pro-welfare status quo. Labour are as bad at maths as they are politics. Their approval rating is on the floor. There has never been a better time to strike, but will anyone land the blow? Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Mint
24-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
Will the UKs Iron Chancellor Melt Under the Heat?
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- When does a tactical retreat become a rout? Keir Starmer performed his biggest U-turn in government yet on Thursday by promising to reinstate some pensioners' winter fuel allowance (WFA), which he cut last July. The prime minister caved in after muttering from disaffected Labour backbench MPs became a roar - and the measure had become totemic of much that the voters dislike about a government, now languishing in the opinion polls behind the populist Reform UK party. The prime minister can just soldier on. No one, not even Starmer, who prides himself on his 'pragmatism,' knows what his guiding light is on the economy. As a former lawyer with a strong record on human rights, his hand can be detected in liberal prison reforms and deference to international courts; otherwise he seems most at home with his international affairs brief. A number of Downing Street economic advisers have quit without explanation over the last fortnight. They seem to have been none the wiser about their boss's economic philosophy too - or were underwhelmed by it. Starmer has a history of tacking with the prevailing wind, but the threat to Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves's credibility from the winter fuel climbdown is greater than other flip flops. It isn't uncommon for chancellors to be forced to make a screeching U-turn after a tax-raising measure lands badly. Reeves, however, sold last July's cut to the 'WFA' as a necessary sacrifice for winning the confidence of financial markets, perennially suspicious of Labour's fiscal incontinence. It was an early, self-imposed test of discipline to curb borrowing - which the self-styled 'Iron Chancellor' has now flunked. The amount at stake is £1.4 billion ($1.9 billion), a modest sum by Treasury calculations. But the cost is really to the chancellor's credibility. It also embroiled her own and the PM's communications team in denying reports that the chancellor would change course - right up to the day she did. A perception of unreliability is beginning to set in around the Starmer government, which feeds a sense of nervousness. There might be good reason for that: Three weeks away from her public spending review, April's official figures showed that the government is spending £6.6 billion more than a year earlier. Despite a tax-raising budget last autumn, public-sector salary increases and spending on benefits have overtaken the rise in receipts. Over the last 12 months, borrowing has increased by £11 billion more than forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the guardian of her fiscal rules. The sizeable cost of servicing the debt — often highlighted by Labour in opposition — mounts as international markets take fright at the Trump administration's profligacy. The chancellor's climbdown won't end the episode. Any pensioners who benefit from the U turn face having to wait a year to have payments reinstated. And the problem with promising reversals is that it stimulates appetites for other retreats: pressure is also mounting on Starmer and Reeves to U-turn on proposed welfare cuts. More than 170 Labour MPs, enough to overturn the government's House of Commons majority, have signaled they have had enough and made that clear in a spate of letters to the chief whip - and in a testy meeting last week with the premier himself. Reeves is now also having to guard her flanks against two shadow chancellors. Unfortunately for her, both of them are in her own party - Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Gordon Brown, a former Labour prime minister and long-serving chancellor (later PM) - and once a role model for Reeves as an aspiring politician. Rayner is the Labour party's darling and has the authority of her mandate as directly elected deputy leader, whereas most of her colleagues owe their status to the whims of the PM. Her back story - she left school pregnant at 16 to make her way in the world of trade union politics and fought her way through the man-o-spheres to the top table of her party. That means she had both deep union support and a solid base among 'soft left' MPs dismayed by Starmer and Reeves's apparent conversion to austerity, which many of them consider to be a Tory crime. What, they now argue plaintively, was the point of electing a Labour government if it takes money away from pensioners and the disabled? A series of newspaper leaks reveal the deputy leader arguing with the chancellor for eight new taxes on the better-off to avoid cuts in public spending. And in an appeal to working class voters lost to Reform, Rayner also suggests cutting welfare payments for foreigners. These are bold ideas and ought to have been hashed out with the pros (and many cons in terms of Labour's overall positioning on tax) in opposition. But to surface them in contradiction to the chancellor under pressure to make her sums add up feels like a nose-thumb. Yet economic reality can't be waved away with a magic wand - or U-turn. Without benefits reform, public spending can't be controlled. As the Welfare Secretary Liz Kendall admitted in an interview this week 'there are now 1,000 new personal independence payment awards every single day.' Meanwhile, public sector unions are threatening to strike over their annual awards, even though they more than match inflation and the government's strategy was to seal off industrial discontent with early deals on taking office. To cut through this muddle of peevishness, job jostling and justified criticism, Reeves has three courses: Cut spending or raise taxes in the autumn or put off tough choices in the hope that something better will turn up. The markets would certainly prefer a combination of the first two options. Most Labour MPs naturally prefer a combination of the second and third. We will discover what material the chancellor is made of — the price of giving way on too much so soon is that the mantle of 'iron' chancellor melts. She had to give way on winter fuel. But Reeves will need to move fast to make it clear that this U-turn is an exception not a rule. More From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Martin Ivens is the editor of the Times Literary Supplement. Previously, he was editor of the Sunday Times of London and its chief political commentator. More stories like this are available on
The Citizen
20-05-2025
- Business
- The Citizen
KLCBT Business Conference to start tomorrow
No fewer than 14 fantastic speakers will take the podium during the inaugural annual business conference hosted by the Kruger Lowveld Chamber of Business and Tourism (KLCBT) which launches tomorrow at the Emnotweni Arena. The conference aims to reinspire, reignite and re-energise Lowveld business owners and CEOs. May 21 will mark the first day of the two-day conference and the programme will kick off with future infrastructure investments as well as developments in the digital space. While everybody's talking AI, which is included in the programme, the subject of personal networking and branding will be addressed. ALSO READ: Exciting economic developments to boost the Lowveld The day will close with the very popular political economist, Moeletsi Mbeki, who suggests that government wages should be slashed. Patrons are all invited to attend a special networking dinner with the speakers and the current KLCBT president, Prof David Mabunda. The second day will focus on forecasts and potential, including the subjects of safety and security, the economic landscape, plans for the Nkomazi SEZ, and the necessity of development in tourism. None other than Prof Theuns Eloff will present his own version of the 'State of the nation address', augmented by Adv Stefanie Fick who will weave more into 'The big, the good and the ugly'. It will take a media guru like Izak du Plessis of Nuuspod to summarise the key takeaways from the conference and to leave the Lowveld Inspired! ALSO READ: Warm welcome for new KLCBT president In addition to the excellent conference line-up, delegates will also have the opportunity to visit 20 exhibitions in the hall next door. Conference bookings are filling up fast, so it is advisable to book timeously to avoid disappointment. Visit the KLCBT Facebook page or website for ongoing updates or to secure your spot. Wednesday, May 21 10:00 – Delegate registration 10:30 – Opening and welcome: Linda Grimbeek, KLCBT CEO 11:00 – Investment confidence: Louis Nel, Manganese Metal Company CEO 11:30 – Future infrastructure growth: Alex van Niekerk, TRAC N4 CEO 12:00 – Farmer makes a plan: Robert Davel, Agri Mpumalanga CEO 12:30 – Networking as a sport: Cornelle Crowley, BNI 13:00 – Lunch 14:00 – The future of AI: Indio Swartz, Dinges Tech 14:30 – Ignite the WHY: Building the future of business WFA: Conversation led by Wayne Langridge, founder and CEO 15:00 – Slash government wages, fuel the future: Moeletsi Mbeki, political economist 15:30 – Summary of the day and closure 18:00 – President's dinner. Thursday, May 22 08:00 – Delegate registration 08:30 – Recap and opening: Linda Grimbeek 09:00 – Integrated safety collaboration: Tshifhiwa Tshivengwa, Tourism Business Council of South Africa CEO 09:30 – Economic landscape: Calvin Mabona, Old Mutual 10:00 – The big plan: Victor Windvoël, Nkomazi SEZ chairperson 10:30 – Tea break 11:00 – Investment in tourism, a necessity: Oupa Pilane, KLCBT special attaché 11:30 – The state of the nation: Prof Theuns Eloff 12:00 – The big, the good and the ugly: Adv Stefanie Fick, OUTA director 12:30 – Takeaways panel discussion led by Izak du Plessis of Nuuspod 13:00 – Closure and lunch. Lowvelder will attend the two-day conference to give you all the latest updates on the speakers and events. At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!
Singapore Law Watch
20-05-2025
- Health
- Singapore Law Watch
Pregnant women in the workplace deserve better: Opinion
Pregnant women in the workplace deserve better: Opinion Source: Straits Times Article Date: 20 May 2025 From pay cuts to unjust dismissals, pregnancy can still derail a woman's career. The Workplace Fairness Act does not go far enough in preventing discrimination, say the authors. Jenny (not her real name) was undergoing a probationary period at work when she found out she was pregnant. She did not want to disclose this to her employer, but had no choice when she experienced complications requiring time off. After she returned to work, her employer fired her a day before her three-month probation was to end. She was not given any reason, and her employer docked her pay for the medical leave she took. Another worker, Anne (not her real name), applied for a job and was granted an interview. While filling out a form for this, she noticed that a health examination was required. Given that she was pregnant, she could not undergo the required X-ray examination. Anne e-mailed the company to say she was pregnant and asked for more information about the examination. The company ghosted her. Jenny and Anne are not isolated cases. They are among hundreds of women who sought help from the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) for discrimination and harassment as a result of pregnancy. Discrimination against expectant mothers in the workplace is a reality in Singapore and is often treated as part and parcel of the workplace culture. Apart from the fact that pregnancy discrimination is manifestly unfair, as a nation we are also facing a seriously low total fertility rate. We should be looking at how we can make bolder systemic changes that support parents in growing their families. This has to start with how pregnant women are treated in the workplace, in the home, and in society at large. Eradicating discrimination against pregnant women No woman should have to choose between her job and having children, but this is the reality when discrimination and harassment continue in our workplaces today. The Workplace Fairness Act (WFA) was passed this year. When it comes into effect in 2026/2027, it will prohibit employment decisions that discriminate against pregnant women. However, the WFA falls short of fully protecting pregnant women. The WFA applies only to a limited set of employment decisions: hiring, appraising, promoting, reducing employees' rank or status, training, dismissing, retrenching and terminating the contract of employees. This excludes a host of employment decisions that regularly affect pregnant employees, such as docking their salaries, giving them lower or higher workloads without their consent, and reducing their bonuses. These are noteworthy concerns. Indeed, the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM) Fair Employment Practices 2023 report confirmed that salary, workload distribution and bonus were listed as the top three most common forms of discrimination, at 43.4 per cent, 33.7 per cent and 26.8 per cent, respectively. Aware recommends that a wider range of employment decisions be covered under the WFA, including the ones identified by the MOM. Since the WFA has not come into effect, women like Jenny and Anne have no other option but to rely on the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP). Complaints of discrimination can be made to the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (Tafep). However, the TGFEP is not law, and there is no legal recourse against an employer who refuses to comply. In addition, to effectively rely on the WFA or the TGFEP, women need to prove that they have been discriminated against based on their pregnancy. This seems reasonable, on the face of it. However, in practical terms, it is difficult to prove. Many employers refuse to give a reason, or sometimes give reasons that do not seem genuine. In another case that Aware saw, Farah (not her real name) was 17 weeks pregnant and had her employment terminated. The reason given was that her position was redundant due to restructuring. Another fellow pregnant employee similarly had her employment terminated. In cases like these, it is difficult for employees to prove that their employers discriminated against them on the basis of their pregnancy. Aware calls for the burden of proof to be reversed in favour of pregnant women. So if a woman's employment is terminated while she is pregnant, there is a presumption that it was a discriminatory dismissal – and the burden is on the employer to prove there is a valid reason for the termination. Offer better support for parents Mothers whose children are Singapore citizens are entitled to 16 weeks of maternity leave. For the first two children, the Government pays 50 per cent of their pay and the employer bears the rest. However, for the third and subsequent children, the Government bears the full wages for the 16 weeks of maternity leave. This cost to the employer for the first two children is often glossed over. Such a cost could easily deter employers and be the source of discrimination. Since it is in the country's interest that people have children, full government-paid maternity leave should be extended to the first and second children as well. This means employers not being burdened by the cost of having more children in Singapore. In addition, it will also encourage more employers to hire temporary covers for employees on maternity leave, if there is no additional cost to the employer in doing so. Such a practice is fairer to existing employees too, rather than asking them to take on the work of the employee on maternity leave and breeding resentment among them – a further source of discrimination. Policies in countries touted as having the 'best practices' for childcare leave by the United Nations Population Fund are instructive to look at. In Sweden, there is generous parental leave of 240 days per child per parent (and 480 days for single parents). Parental insurance – funded by employers and the self-employed – broadly covers 80 per cent of income for 195 days (or 390 days for single parents) and covers the remaining 45 days (or 90 days for single parents) at a minimum rate. The leave can be used any time from 60 days before delivery (by the mother only for the pre-delivery period) until the child is 12; but after the age of four, parents have only 96 days per child. This is an excellent gender-equal policy and one that gives equal recognition to single parents, too. We echo our previous calls to equalise maternity and paternity leave – parenting is the equal responsibility of both parents. The parental policies in Estonia and Slovenia also resonate. They provide unemployed parents with some basic income as parental benefits towards caregiving of their children, especially in infancy. Time for reasonable accommodations Reasonable accommodations are often discussed in the context of disability, but they apply to a variety of situations, including pregnancy and caregiving. For example, pregnant women who are expected to perform certain physical tasks at the workplace should reasonably be given tasks commensurate with their ability during pregnancy. Accommodations that pregnant employees need for the health and safety of their own bodies, and to some extent that of their unborn child, are reasonable asks. It is important to remember the focus is on what is reasonable in the circumstances, for both employers and employees. In most developed social democracies, the obligation on employers to provide reasonable accommodations is included within employment Acts or alongside anti-discrimination policies. The principle behind this is that most anti-discrimination policies – which prohibit employers from choosing not to hire employees with protected characteristics – need to also require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for their employees when they are hired. In Singapore, the Government has chosen to pass the WFA without a mandatory obligation to provide reasonable accommodations. Instead, the aim is for Tafep to issue guidelines on reasonable accommodations with the hope that all employers will adopt these guidelines. This means that employers are not legally compelled to provide reasonable accommodations. We hope that Tafep and MOM will track the adoption of the guidelines by employers and will also track how well employers are responding to employees' needs and providing reasonable accommodations. This will enable the Government to assess earlier rather than later if legislation is required to make it obligatory for employers to provide accommodations that are reasonable. The Government can also help employers to adopt these guidelines by providing them with grants to put in place the various reasonable accommodations – for example, lactation rooms and refrigerators to store breast milk – and other incentives to encourage adoption of the guidelines, such as tax incentives. We call for more substantive measures to support mothers in the workplace, at home and in society. This month of May, when we celebrate mothers, it is time we set our sights on good policy that values how precious motherhood is. Sugidha Nithiananthan is director of advocacy and research at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware). Adilah Rafey is a research executive there. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
