So to validate my own position referencing the no plan…
Scrap PIP, backlash amongst peers so back track.
Snippet from the article:
The government was adamant that its “welfare reform” changes - announced in March’s Green Paper - were designed to get people back to work.
The bulk of planned savings came from tightening the eligibility for Personal Independence Payments (Pip), which are paid to support people who face extra costs due to disability, regardless of whether or not they are in work.
Note references a “Green Paper”
From the article:
Labour had “in the end” made the right decision, the committee said in a report. But it reiterated calls for the remaining planned cuts to universal credit to be delayed until their impact on poverty, health and jobs were fully understood.
Ministers been left badly bruised by the enforced gutting of its bill, which was intended to save £5bn a year by the end of the decade. Keir Starmer, the prime minister, admitted subsequently that No 10 “didn’t get the process right”.
So am I right to think that the initial “plan” which was back tracked on, was an ill educated plan?
Regarding the Employees rights bill:
From the article:
Labour had planned to abolish this qualifying period completely, alongside introducing a new legal probation period, likely to have been nine months.
The promise was a central pledge in Labour’s manifesto ahead of last year’s general election, and a key plank of its Employment Rights Bill.
Labour pledged to create “basic rights from day one to parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal”.
Cuts to the Public Services:
Lack of planning has hit Labour’s efforts to fix public services, says thinktank | Public services policy | The Guardian.
Article based on Institute for Government (IfG) report:
The annual report provides a damaging overview of an occasionally chaotic first year in government for Labour, during which the party and Starmer have slumped in the polls.
Nick Davies, a programme director at the IfG and one of the authors of the report, said: “Starmer went into government with a set of missions, but no clear idea about how to achieve them or how those targets fit together in any meaningful way.
“He has not been properly engaged with this process. In opposition he should have been the one to say: ‘This is my view of what public sector reform looks like’, whether that’s on devolution, or the health service, or anything else.
“But there has been a void at the heart of government when it comes to public services.”
In the report, Davies adds: “Starmer must urgently get a grip if Labour is to enter the next election having delivered tangible improvements to the services upon which the public depends.”
The scrapping of the Two child benefit:
This was a move to pacify unrest and appease back benchers. As I mentioned in another post, there were a small number of MP’s who had the whip removed for opposing the Governments policy on the Cap.
Starmer’s recent stance was to scrap it when Fiscal Policy allows. Well, they haven’t got any better and the scrapping is commonly seen as a change of Fiscal Policy.
I believe Reform, Lib Dem and the Greens have committed to scrapping the policy.
This is not a plan it is a reaction.
The lead up to the recent budget, ermmm we may have to break our manifesto pledge on increasing Taxes, the only Government since the 70’s. To, oh it’s okay, thankfully we got better results than anticipated so we will just tax you in other areas to the tune of £20bn+.
In regards to your links in support of “having a plan”.
I have read the White Paper - Getting Britain Working - and it is just an assessment, a suggestion of what the Government wants to do. It suggests a £45m investment in the Trailblazing Scheme, but it’s all rather generic. It is not a plan.
If you are so assured in this White Paper explain/ educate me as to what I am missing.
The White Paper to me this is just another assessment/review that all Parties do to show observations of the current issues, stating what they would like to do with very little to support the means in which they are going to achieve this.
The other links, pretty much refer to the same point. Infact, the Hansard link provides little to no support to your point. All it does, is highlight the fact that this initiative is selective upon areas, so not nationwide and is not expanded to Scotland.
.