Share this post:
It’s so disappointing when they’re unfaithful – isn’t it?
Labour has broken its manifesto commitment to offer protection against unfair dismissal from Day One of any employment, under pressure from employers.
It comes just two days after the current party of government broke another manifesto commitment – not to raise income taxes – by freezing the thresholds at which that tax is paid.
Here’s the BBC:
“Ministers now plan to introduce the right after six months instead, after business groups voiced concerns it would discourage firms from hiring.
“The government argued it was making the climbdown to stop its employment legislation being delayed in the House of Lords, where it has run into opposition.
“Other new day-one rights to sick pay and paternity leave will still go ahead, coming into effect in April 2026.
“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”.
“But asked if it was a breach of the Labour manifesto, Business Secretary Peter Kyle said: “No.”
“Instead, he argued the manifesto had pledged to “bring people together” and “that this would not be legislation that pits one side against another”.”
Labour’s decision to abandon day-one protection from unfair dismissal is plainly a breach of its manifesto, no matter how the government tries to spin it.
The original promise was unambiguous: the party pledged “basic rights from day one to parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal.”
Nothing in that wording offered any wiggle-room. There were no conditions, no caveats about parliamentary negotiations, and no suggestion that these rights would depend on agreements with employers. It was a central commitment, presented as a defining feature of Labour’s Employment Rights Bill.
Please take a moment to complete the Vox Political Reader Survey.
Your answers are anonymous and will help shape future coverage.
Click here to take part.
The government has now rewritten that pledge by postponing unfair-dismissal protection to six months and dropping the legal probation period designed to provide balance for employers.
This is not a reinterpretation or a refinement; it is a reversal.
Peter Kyle’s claim that this does not constitute a breach because the manifesto also promised to “bring people together” is nothing more than a rhetorical distraction.
A general, aspirational line cannot retrospectively override a specific, concrete policy promise.
If that logic were accepted, no manifesto pledge would ever need to be honoured, because any of them could be set aside by appealing to vaguer sentiments elsewhere in the document.
The fact that Labour MPs, affiliated unions and even major donors are openly describing the move as a betrayal shows how flimsy Kyle’s argument really is.
This employment-rights breach sits alongside another, largely unacknowledged one that took place in the Budget of 26 November 2025.
Only two days before the unfair-dismissal U-turn, Rachel Reeves insisted that Labour would not break its manifesto promise not to raise taxes.
Yet the Budget freezes personal tax thresholds, which is a well-established form of stealth taxation.
When thresholds are frozen, wages rising with inflation push workers into higher tax bands and increase their effective tax burden.
The result is a tax rise in practice, even though the headline rates stay the same.
By confirming a multi-year extension of the threshold freeze, the Budget has imposed a substantial, predictable increase in income-tax receipts, meaning Labour has broken the spirit and the economic reality of its promise not to raise income tax, National Insurance or VAT.
Reeves’s claim that the manifesto remains intact does not survive contact with the facts contained in her own Budget.
Together, these two reversals expose a deeper pattern in the government’s approach.
Labour’s leadership appears far more willing to placate business groups, the House of Lords and the commentariat than to uphold promises made directly to working people.
In the case of the Employment Rights Bill, the House of Lords was not defeating the legislation but delaying it, which is a normal part of parliamentary scrutiny.
Governments with conviction push through their manifesto commitments against such resistance. Labour chose not to, and the justification offered is that employers and unions had brokered a compromise.
But if manifesto commitments can be diluted simply because external actors demand it, voters will rightly question whether any of Labour’s pledges are safe.
The party’s insistence that these decisions are acts of pragmatism masks a political calculation that is becoming increasingly clear.
The leadership seems to fear accusations of being “anti-business” more than accusations of dishonesty or betrayal.
At the same time, Reeves’s Budget has already increased the tax burden on ordinary workers while Labour simultaneously denies doing so.
The employment-rights U-turn therefore lands in a climate where trust is already being eroded – by lies.
Workers see Labour promising one thing and delivering another; unions see their warnings dismissed unless they align with the leadership’s preferred narrative; and employers see that political pressure will be rewarded with policy concessions.
What emerges is a government quick to retreat from policies that meaningfully shift power towards workers, but fully willing to impose a stealth tax rise that shifts financial pressure onto the very same people.
A party that campaigned on strengthening workers’ rights and supporting working families has, within a short span of time, broken its commitments on both fronts while insisting, unconvincingly, that nothing has changed.
Share this post:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Labour breaches manifesto promises by pandering to employers over unfair dismissal
Share this post:
It’s so disappointing when they’re unfaithful – isn’t it?
Labour has broken its manifesto commitment to offer protection against unfair dismissal from Day One of any employment, under pressure from employers.
It comes just two days after the current party of government broke another manifesto commitment – not to raise income taxes – by freezing the thresholds at which that tax is paid.
Here’s the BBC:
“Ministers now plan to introduce the right after six months instead, after business groups voiced concerns it would discourage firms from hiring.
“The government argued it was making the climbdown to stop its employment legislation being delayed in the House of Lords, where it has run into opposition.
“Other new day-one rights to sick pay and paternity leave will still go ahead, coming into effect in April 2026.
“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”.
“But asked if it was a breach of the Labour manifesto, Business Secretary Peter Kyle said: “No.”
“Instead, he argued the manifesto had pledged to “bring people together” and “that this would not be legislation that pits one side against another”.”
Labour’s decision to abandon day-one protection from unfair dismissal is plainly a breach of its manifesto, no matter how the government tries to spin it.
The original promise was unambiguous: the party pledged “basic rights from day one to parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal.”
Nothing in that wording offered any wiggle-room. There were no conditions, no caveats about parliamentary negotiations, and no suggestion that these rights would depend on agreements with employers. It was a central commitment, presented as a defining feature of Labour’s Employment Rights Bill.
The government has now rewritten that pledge by postponing unfair-dismissal protection to six months and dropping the legal probation period designed to provide balance for employers.
This is not a reinterpretation or a refinement; it is a reversal.
Peter Kyle’s claim that this does not constitute a breach because the manifesto also promised to “bring people together” is nothing more than a rhetorical distraction.
A general, aspirational line cannot retrospectively override a specific, concrete policy promise.
If that logic were accepted, no manifesto pledge would ever need to be honoured, because any of them could be set aside by appealing to vaguer sentiments elsewhere in the document.
The fact that Labour MPs, affiliated unions and even major donors are openly describing the move as a betrayal shows how flimsy Kyle’s argument really is.
This employment-rights breach sits alongside another, largely unacknowledged one that took place in the Budget of 26 November 2025.
Only two days before the unfair-dismissal U-turn, Rachel Reeves insisted that Labour would not break its manifesto promise not to raise taxes.
Yet the Budget freezes personal tax thresholds, which is a well-established form of stealth taxation.
When thresholds are frozen, wages rising with inflation push workers into higher tax bands and increase their effective tax burden.
The result is a tax rise in practice, even though the headline rates stay the same.
By confirming a multi-year extension of the threshold freeze, the Budget has imposed a substantial, predictable increase in income-tax receipts, meaning Labour has broken the spirit and the economic reality of its promise not to raise income tax, National Insurance or VAT.
Reeves’s claim that the manifesto remains intact does not survive contact with the facts contained in her own Budget.
Together, these two reversals expose a deeper pattern in the government’s approach.
Labour’s leadership appears far more willing to placate business groups, the House of Lords and the commentariat than to uphold promises made directly to working people.
In the case of the Employment Rights Bill, the House of Lords was not defeating the legislation but delaying it, which is a normal part of parliamentary scrutiny.
Governments with conviction push through their manifesto commitments against such resistance. Labour chose not to, and the justification offered is that employers and unions had brokered a compromise.
But if manifesto commitments can be diluted simply because external actors demand it, voters will rightly question whether any of Labour’s pledges are safe.
The party’s insistence that these decisions are acts of pragmatism masks a political calculation that is becoming increasingly clear.
The leadership seems to fear accusations of being “anti-business” more than accusations of dishonesty or betrayal.
At the same time, Reeves’s Budget has already increased the tax burden on ordinary workers while Labour simultaneously denies doing so.
The employment-rights U-turn therefore lands in a climate where trust is already being eroded – by lies.
Workers see Labour promising one thing and delivering another; unions see their warnings dismissed unless they align with the leadership’s preferred narrative; and employers see that political pressure will be rewarded with policy concessions.
What emerges is a government quick to retreat from policies that meaningfully shift power towards workers, but fully willing to impose a stealth tax rise that shifts financial pressure onto the very same people.
A party that campaigned on strengthening workers’ rights and supporting working families has, within a short span of time, broken its commitments on both fronts while insisting, unconvincingly, that nothing has changed.
Share this post:
Like this:
you might also like
More mistakes in the script? Correcting Cameron’s New Year speech
Like this:
The lies that smashed the unions and destroyed our coal industry
Like this:
Osborne wants a ‘year of hard truths’. Here’s one: He’s HIDING the truth
Like this:
Like this: