THERE was a great deal of cheering in the House of Commons when George Osborne announced the introduction of a National Living Wage.
The Tories, the right-wing pundits said, had shot Labour’s fox.
“Let me be clear: Britain deserves a pay rise,” Osborne declared at the Budget in July, “and Britain is getting a pay rise.”
At that Budget the Labour benches sat quietly. Already defeated and dejected, they were now being outflanked by Osborne on left-wing issues.
The problem with Osborne’s “living wage” is that it is no such thing.
Significantly less than the figure recommended by the Living Wage Foundation, and significantly less than it should be – as it applies only to the over-25s – it is incredibly unfair. Britain is not getting a pay rise. In fact, it is getting quite the opposite.
Osborne knew exactly what he was doing. He is not a Chancellor to be underestimated.
It was a smokescreen, or “a con trick”, as the SNP described it.
As you look at the hand offering the National Living Wage you fail to notice the other hand taking away the safety net that many in the country rely on.
The report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirms what many had guessed at on the day of the Budget. Those who will supposedly benefit from the National Living Wage will lose out on changes to taxes, tax credits and benefits.
And who will be hit the hardest? The poorest. Those with little left to lose.
The youth vote is an asset to any political campaign
EVEN the staunchest opponent of giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in last year’s referendum had to think again by the time September 18 came round.
The young voices then were easily some of the most impassioned and most informed.
Both the Yes campaign and Better Together were improved by having under-18s on their teams.
It is time for the rest of the UK to catch up. Votes at 16 and 17 have worked in Austria, Germany, Norway, Argentina and Brazil. And they has worked here in Scotland.
That 75 per cent of 16 and 17-year-olds voted is impressive but no surprise.
And they weren’t following trends or fashion, or blindly following their parents into the ballot box. They did their own research and they made up their own minds.
Chancellor’s welfare cuts not offset by ‘Living Wage’ claims IFS
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here