Badenoch wants to freeze the minimum wage – so businesses get more state subsidies?
Share this post:
The Conservatives want us to work for less while billionaires scoop up all the cash – again.
The BBC tells us:
“Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has questioned whether businesses can afford the current minimum wage and suggested that it should not increase further.
“In an interview with the BBC, Badenoch said she had increased the minimum wage when she was in government, but “a lot of businesses” had then told her that, as a result, they had had to lose staff.
“Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the minimum wage would rise 4.1% to £12.71 an hour for workers aged over 21 from April in her Budget last month.
An honest future-direction message
“Vox Political is nearing the end of its fourteenth year, and I want to be honest with you: the online advertising model that kept the site free to read has deteriorated so sharply that it can no longer sustain the work.
This is not a reflection on the readership; it is a structural shift affecting small publishers everywhere.
Rather than quietly winding down, I’m giving you clear notice: Vox Political will close at the end of the year unless something dramatically changes. The good news is that The Whip Line already exists, is reader-funded, and is growing. That is where I can continue producing the journalism you value, free from the chaos of advertiser algorithms.
If you want the work to continue, please join me there. Free and paid subscriptions are available, but please remember it is the paid subscriptions – monthly and annual – that directly fund the reporting.”
“The National Minimum Wage for 18 to 20-year-olds will also increase by 8.5% to £10.85 per hour, and the rate for 16 and 17-year-olds as well as those on apprenticeships, will increase by 6% to £8 per hour.
“Badenoch replied: “We need to listen to what businesses are saying. It’s not government ministers that create jobs, it’s business that creates jobs.””
Badenoch’s message is clear: make workers poorer so the rich can stay comfortable.
To read the full fact-filled analysis, head over to The Whip Line.
A paid subscription unlocks all my analysis and helps keep independent UK political journalism going.
Share this post:
Councils are being squeezed to collapse so the government can pretend to be clean
Share this post:
If Austerity is over – as Rachel Reeves keeps trying to tell us – why are more local authorities going bankrupt?
The Guardian has details:
“Local authorities in England and Wales have warned their finances are at “breaking point” with more councils expected to fall into bankruptcy in future, as they face a nervous wait to discover their government funding this month.
“Council leaders expect changes to annual funding arrangements will result in steep cuts for many local authorities, preventing many from balancing their books and providing basic services to citizens.
“29 councils have already been unable to meet their financial obligations without special government loans, including Croydon, Thurrock in Essex and Birmingham.
“The number of local authorities unable to meet their statutory obligations was likely to grow when the government publishes a new funding settlement this month.
“The government said the outcome of its “fair funding review 2.0”, which is expected to be published on 17 December, will help councils cope with high levels of deprivation.
“Despite… extra cash for poorer areas, many Labour councils expect to make difficult decisions before agreeing a budget for 2026-27.
“Joanne Pitt, a senior policy adviser at the local authority accountancy body Cipfa, said borrowing by local authorities had reached £1,500 per person and was on course to rise further.
“Most of the 29 authorities given exceptional financial support – a temporary loan from the government – were rolling over the loans to stay afloat, she said.
“Most of the 29 authorities given exceptional financial support – a temporary loan from the government – were rolling over the loans to stay afloat, she said.”
This tells us that “austerity is over” has mostly been a political slogan, not a structural change in how the United Kingdom funds local government — and the structural problems that bankrupted councils under austerity were never fixed.
An honest future-direction message
“Vox Political is nearing the end of its fourteenth year, and I want to be honest with you: the online advertising model that kept the site free to read has deteriorated so sharply that it can no longer sustain the work.
This is not a reflection on the readership; it is a structural shift affecting small publishers everywhere.
Rather than quietly winding down, I’m giving you clear notice: Vox Political will close at the end of the year unless something dramatically changes. The good news is that The Whip Line already exists, is reader-funded, and is growing. That is where I can continue producing the journalism you value, free from the chaos of advertiser algorithms.
If you want the work to continue, please join me there. Free and paid subscriptions are available, but please remember it is the paid subscriptions – monthly and annual – that directly fund the reporting.”
The simple fact seems to be that councils are not getting the funding they need to make ends meet.
If the government simply can’t afford it, then there is a serious problem with whatever economic model it is using to provide such funding. Let me lay it out for you:
After the Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition government came into office in 2010, central government systematically shifted risk and responsibility onto councils while shrinking their reliable funding.
Councils lost huge chunks of their core “formula grants” after 2010. They were told to survive by raising council tax (which is capped), relying more on business rates (which are wildly uneven by area), and becoming “commercial” (property investments, trading companies, borrowing to invest).
That model was never sustainable. It just delayed the crash.
Now demand-led costs are exploding.
Adult social care is ageing-driven and essentially uncapped.
Children’s services costs are soaring, especially SEND* support.
Homelessness and temporary accommodation costs have risen sharply due to housing shortages and high rents.
These aren’t optional services – they are legal duties. This means councils must pay them first — and cut everything else.
There would be no cuts if Austerity was over. It is therefore clear that Austerity is not over.
If Austerity was over, government funding increases would cover real-world cost growth – and they don’t.
Government statements about “above inflation” increases are misleading, for several reasons:
They include income that councils only get if they raise council tax by the maximum allowed.
They ignore the fact that social care costs are rising faster than general inflation.
They don’t account for debt interest; councils were encouraged to borrow and now face higher rates.
This in turn means Austerity has plunged councils into permanent crisis managment.
The Section 114 bankruptcy notices are happening because councils literally cannot meet their legal obligations.
The issue is not “overspending”; it’s about rising unavoidable costs.
It’s about historic debt.
It’s about cuts that were already baked-into funding settlements.
And it’s about successive governments offering short-term “loans” instead of proper funding.
Local government in England can’t run deficits like central government. They can’t create money. Their tax powers are capped. And they are legally required to balance budgets.
So when costs outstrip income, they don’t get flexibility — they get forced into service cuts, “exceptional” loans, and asset sales that mean the cost of services will increase as councils are forced to rent back property and equipment they previously owned.
And as I stated above, the economic model is the problem.
The UK runs a highly centralised, Treasury-controlled system in which money is easy to create for banks or defence or to bail out markets, but is treated as scarce when it comes to social care, housing, or local government
That’s a political choice baked into the post-2010 model.
“Fair funding 2.0” won’t fix this. Tweaking formulas doesn’t solve unsustainable demand, debt traps, uncapped statutory duties, and a tax system that can’t meet real needs.
So Austerity isn’t over.
It has just been rebranded, while local authorities are being left to collapse quietly at the front line.
What you are seeing is not council failure.
It’s systemic central government betrayal, pushed off onto local authorities so ministers can pretend the national balance sheet looks tidy.
*Special Educational Needs and Disabilities.
Share this post:
Labour’s attitude to Covid fraud shows it is the fraudsters’ willing accomplice
Share this post:
When working-class people are poor, they’re treated as liars. When corporations steal billions, it’s called “risk” and quietly written off.
Here’s the BBC to explain how it worked – albeit indirectly:
“Covid-19 support programmes cost taxpayers nearly £11bn through fraud and error, a report will say.
“A lack of anti-fraud controls in Covid schemes that were set up quickly by ministers in Boris Johnson’s government are expected to be highlighted in the report and blamed for the huge figure.
“Rushed rollouts meant “accepting a high level of fraud risk, without plans for managing or mitigating this risk,” it will say.
“The Covid Counter Fraud Commissioner Tom Hayhoe… has been tasked by Chancellor Rachel Reeves with trying to recover the public money lost to fraud and underperforming contracts using his experience in procurement as the former chair of an NHS trust.
“His previous reports found that pandemic-era PPE contracts cost the British taxpayer £1.4bn on undelivered contracts and unusable gowns, masks and gloves.
“Only a small fraction of that – £182m – has been recovered by HM Treasury.”
The £10.9 billion figure is not a “mistake” story – it is the logical result of political choices.
These schemes were designed and launched by Boris Johnson’s Conservative government with one overriding priority: move fast, protect corporate balance sheets, and avoid political fallout in the short term.
Fraud wasn’t an unforeseen consequence; it was a risk they consciously accepted.
And Labour inherited this mess – but chose softness in response. That’s why I say the current government is collaborating with the fraudsters.
An honest future-direction message
“Vox Political is nearing the end of its fourteenth year, and I want to be honest with you: the online advertising model that kept the site free to read has deteriorated so sharply that it can no longer sustain the work.
This is not a reflection on the readership; it is a structural shift affecting small publishers everywhere.
Rather than quietly winding down, I’m giving you clear notice: Vox Political will close at the end of the year unless something dramatically changes. The good news is that The Whip Line already exists, is reader-funded, and is growing. That is where I can continue producing the journalism you value, free from the chaos of advertiser algorithms.
If you want the work to continue, please join me there. Free and paid subscriptions are available, but please remember it is the paid subscriptions – monthly and annual – that directly fund the reporting.”
The report’s wording is already doing quiet damage control for the political class: “accepting a high level of fraud risk” sounds technical, but translated into plain English it means: ministers decided it was acceptable for billions to be stolen, as long as big business got its cash quickly and the optics looked good.
There are several important hypocrisies baked into this story.
First, contrast the treatment of fraud. When corporations and well-connected businesses abused Bounce Back Loans or PPE contracts, the state response was slow, cautious and apologetic.
When benefit claimants make minor errors, the response is brutal: sanctions, prosecutions, humiliation and long-term financial punishment. The standard is not equal, and never has been.
Second, “fraud and error” lumps together organised criminal theft and simple human mistakes, which inflates the headline while conveniently blurring responsibility.
At the same time, the BBC still leans heavily on “the speed of rollout” as an excuse – presenting systemic failure as an unfortunate necessity rather than a political choice.
Third, Rachel Reeves tasking Hayhoe to recover the money lets Labour look “tough on waste” while avoiding the deeper truth: they have no intention of dismantling the same pro-corporate model that made this possible.
They’ll talk about competence, not ideology. They’ll chase a few billions back, not challenge the system that funnelled money upward in the first place.
The most damning part of the story isn’t even the £10.9 billion. It’s this: PPE contracts wasted £1.4 billion, and only £182 million has been recovered.
Consider the contrast:
Labour is tightening the screws on benefit claimants.
The system is still built around conditionality, surveillance and punishment.
Claimants are required to prove their worth constantly: work search requirements are rigid, sanctions for missed appointments remain routine, and disabled people continue to be pushed through repeated reassessments.
The political language from Labour is about “work first”, “responsibility” and “tough choices”, and in practice that means the presumption of guilt still sits with the claimant.
You are not trusted; you are monitored. You are not supported; you are tested.
At the same time, Labour trusts business unnecessarily, reassures it and acts as its partner.
The government talks about “stability”, “pro-business” growth and being “open for investment”.
Business is framed as the engine of recovery and the partner of the state, not the problem.
Where problems are identified – including Covid-era fraud – the tone is managerial, not punitive: talk of procurement reform, “lessons learned” and voluntary repayment schemes rather than criminal sanctions or sweeping crackdowns.
Companies are not subjected to a sanctions culture; they are courted, consulted and protected from instability.
So the real contrast, under Labour now, is this: claimants experience the state as a punisher, while business experiences the state as a collaborator.
That’s backwards.
Share this post:
Labour’s lowest betrayal yet: exploiting vulnerable youngsters to profit big business
Share this post:
I’m having deja vu.
According to the BBC,
“Young people will be stripped of their right to claim benefits if they refuse a taxpayer-funded job after 18 months without a job, the work and pensions secretary says.
“Pat McFadden told the BBC they would need a “good reason” to decline one of the 55,000 six-month placements, to be rolled out from next April.
“The government has announced the roles could span areas including construction and hospitality – although companies taking part are yet to be confirmed.
An honest future-direction message
“Vox Political is nearing the end of its fourteenth year, and I want to be honest with you: the online advertising model that kept the site free to read has deteriorated so sharply that it can no longer sustain the work.
This is not a reflection on the readership; it is a structural shift affecting small publishers everywhere.
Rather than quietly winding down, I’m giving you clear notice: Vox Political will close at the end of the year unless something dramatically changes. The good news is that The Whip Line already exists, is reader-funded, and is growing. That is where I can continue producing the journalism you value, free from the chaos of advertiser algorithms.
If you want the work to continue, please join me there. Free and paid subscriptions are available, but please remember it is the paid subscriptions – monthly and annual – that directly fund the reporting.”
“The placements will begin to be rolled out in six parts of the UK with high youth unemployment from spring 2026, it has been confirmed, following the initial announcement of the scheme in September.
“The six-month roles will be “fully subsidised” for 25 hours a week, paid at the legal minimum wage from an £820m pot announced at the Budget, allocated until 2029, which will also fund training and work support.
“The placements will be offered to 18- to-21-year-olds on universal credit who have been looking for work for 18 months.
“In total, the government plans to create 350,000 training and work experience placements.
“McFadden added: “This is an offer on one hand, but it’s an expectation on the other. Because the future we don’t want for young people is to be sitting at home on benefits, when there are other options out there.”
“McFadden’s Conservative counterpart Helen Whately said… “This scheme is nothing more than taking with one hand to give with the other.”
The Conservatives introduced very similar schemes between 2010–2024, and their criticism now is largely political theatre rather than a principled objection.
Back when they were in government, the Tories ran a series of workfare-style and sanction-linked schemes that worked on exactly the same principle:
They included the Work Programme, Youth Contract, Mandatory Work Activity, and later versions of Sector-based Work Academies. All of these tied benefits to “offers” of work, training or placements, with sanctions if claimants refused without what the department called a “good reason”.
The logic was always the same as Labour’s current line:
– “We’re helping young people”
– “We’re giving them experience”
– “It’s an offer, but there’s an expectation.”
That last phrase could have been lifted straight from an ex-Conservative minister’s briefing note.
So why are the Tories now attacking Labour for doing something so similar?
It’s because they’ve shifted the argument. When they were in power, they framed this approach as “being tough but fair.”
Now they frame Labour’s version as “too expensive” and “not creating real jobs.”
That’s not a moral objection to coercion or sanctions. It’s a political repositioning: they want to attack Labour on economic management, not defend their own record.
The uncomfortable truth for them is this: Labour’s scheme looks like a softened, rebranded version of Conservative-era welfare conditionality.
The big difference isn’t the concept – it’s the packaging and the scale of subsidy.
So when Helen Whately says Labour has “no plan to create real jobs”, what she’s really doing is trying to pretend the Conservatives didn’t do the same thing, repeatedly, for 14 years.
This is a recycled model, with a new logo.
The other aspect is that these placements never worked – for those who were put on them.
They made money for participating businesses because they profited from the work without dipping into their own payrolls.
The evidence from the 2010–24 Conservative-era schemes showed three consistent problems.
First, they were poor at creating lasting jobs.
Internal DWP assessments and later independent evaluations found that a large number of placements did not lead to permanent employment. People rotated through short-term, low-wage roles and were often back on benefits shortly afterwards.
That’s not a credible “route into work” – it’s churn.
Second, they acted as a wage subsidy for employers.
Businesses got workers whose wages were paid by the state. That let them fill shifts, cover vacancies, or expand output without increasing their own payroll costs. In real terms, the taxpayer was underwriting labour while private firms pocketed the profit.
That’s not a conspiracy theory; it’s basic economics. If a business is getting labour it doesn’t have to finance itself, its costs fall and its margins improve.
Third, they distorted the labour market.
Instead of encouraging firms to invest in training or raise wages to attract staff, the schemes gave them a revolving door of state-backed workers. That undercut real job creation and depressed wages, especially in hospitality, retail and care.
The result was that claimants were pressured into placements with little long-term benefit, while employers learned they could rely on subsidised labour rather than create proper jobs.
So when this new scheme is marketed as “help”, the uncomfortable reality is:
– similar schemes failed before,
– they benefited employers more than young people, and
– they did not reduce youth unemployment in a lasting way.
This isn’t “help into work”. It’s social policy being bent to subsidise private business via the welfare system.
So a Labour government is plotting to exploit vulnerable young people for the benefit of big businesses.
Pat McFadden might as well be Iain Duncan Smith and the Labour Party might as well change its name to “New Conservatives”
Share this post:
We need a national fibromyalgia care pathway – why is the NHS dragging its feet?
Share this post:
The National Health Service is failing people with fibromyalgia, with no clear system for diagnosing or treating the condition – despite revealing research.
The BBC has detailed the problems:
“People suffering from the chronic pain condition fibromyalgia are being failed by the NHS, according to new research which found patients were waiting years for diagnosis, undergoing unnecessary tests and being prescribed harmful drugs.
“Researchers at Aberdeen University said some doctors were even refusing to refer patients and dismissing them as “lazy”.
“Fibromyalgia causes pain all over the body and can bring on severe fatigue.
“Some estimates suggest one in 20 people may have the condition… There is no cure.
“It is not clear why some people develop fibromyalgia. The exact cause is unknown.
“Adele ended up paying to go private and finally got her diagnosis. She said: “The diagnosis was a relief but since then it’s been a case of there is no care pathway. You are told it’s definitely fibromyalgia you have – here are some pain killers.”
The way forward is already visible in the evidence – but, as ever with the UK’s health systems, what’s missing is the political will, clinical consistency and service design to act on it.
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.
Fibromyalgia has been stuck in a tragic holding pattern for decades: doctors don’t understand it, therefore they don’t diagnose it, therefore patients look “complex” or “non-compliant”, therefore doctors continue not to understand it.
This loop has harmed hundreds of thousands of people across the United Kingdom and placed enormous, unnecessary strain on carers – including me, in the 17 years I cared for someone with the condition.
But research cited in the BBC piece – yes, you need to go and read it – together with parallel work done over the last few years in pain science and primary-care modelling – points toward a route out of the mess. It’s not easy, but it is straightforward.
Here’s the practical, evidence-led path forward that the NHS could adopt now:
1. Standardised, early diagnosis as the default – not the exception
The Aberdeen team’s findings confirm what patients have said for decades: diagnosis is slow, inconsistent and heavily dependent on whether a clinician believes in the illness. That is untenable.
A national diagnostic protocol – mandated for all primary-care settings – would:
- end the “revolving door” of pointless tests
- stop patients being bounced between specialties
- give GPs confidence that they are following an accepted standard
The research already shows the criteria that work. There is no scientific justification for every clinician reinventing the wheel.
2. Replace the drug-first model with an evidence-based support-first model
MacFarlane’s team found patients overwhelmingly want personalised, non-drug support.
The literature backs that up: symptom-management education, pacing strategies, gentle progressive movement, sleep interventions and psychological support for coping all show greater long-term benefit than escalating painkillers.
The current system is backwards: patients are sent home with drugs that barely work and can cause harm, while the interventions that actually improve quality of life are either unavailable or left to charities.
A proper NHS fibro pathway would include:
- a short, structured education programme on the condition
- access to physio or occupational-therapy-led pacing and energy-management support
- brief psychological support (not to “fix” the illness, but to help cope with its unpredictability)
- diet, sleep and lifestyle guidance tailored to fibro’s known triggers
- peer support options (which have strong evidence for reducing isolation and improving self-management)
This is all cheap, scalable and already proven effective.
3. Multi-disciplinary fibro clinics – even virtual ones – to stop the ping-pong referrals
Patients are currently shunted between rheumatology, gastroenterology, neurology and pain services because nobody “owns” the condition.
The answer isn’t to expand referrals but to collate them: small teams with a rheumatologist or pain specialist, a physio, an OT and a psychology practitioner offering assessment and early-stage support.
This doesn’t require large new buildings; the evidence shows virtual clinics work very well for fibro because continuity, not geography, is what matters.
This change alone would save money: it stops duplicate tests, consultant time and unnecessary drug trials.
4. Mandatory education for clinicians
There is no future for fibro care while clinicians can simply choose not to believe in it.
Training based on pain neuroscience, central sensitisation research, and the lived experience of patients should be standard in GP training, physio training, and for consultant physicians in high-referral specialties.
Crucially, this must include challenging the outdated stigma – the “lazy”, “anxious”, “attention-seeking” stereotypes that MacFarlane’s study exposes.
These attitudes are not just unprofessional; they cause demonstrable clinical harm.
5. Carer involvement and support
My experience is typical: fibromyalgia affects whole households. Any real care pathway must formally include carers, with:
- education for carers about pacing, flare management, cognitive symptoms
- mental-health support and respite access (believe me – this is vital)
- involvement in care-planning conversations
At the moment, carers absorb the system’s failures for free. It is both inequitable and unsustainable.
6. Public-health recognition
Fibromyalgia is common – perhaps one in 20 people, as the BBC article notes – but is treated as if it is rare or marginal.
A national awareness campaign that normalises early help-seeking and reduces stigma would dramatically reduce diagnostic delay.
7. A policy shift: chronic pain as a cross-government priority
Fibromyalgia doesn’t just sit in health; it affects employment, social care, DWP assessments, public transport and mental health.
A joined-up chronic-pain strategy could:
- stop DWP assessors treating fibro as “psychosomatic”
- require employers to recognise fluctuating conditions
- integrate occupational-health support into fibro care plans
This is where political will matters most, because the failures are systemic.
What’s stopping progress?
The barrier is a mixture of:
- institutional scepticism rooted in outdated medical culture
- lack of ownership within the NHS (no specialty wants to “own” fibro)
- political reluctance to commit resources to conditions that don’t kill but do make life hell
Yet, as the Aberdeen study shows, the cost of doing nothing is higher: years of tests, inappropriate interventions, and the enormous personal cost to patients and carers.
So the answer is: a national fibromyalgia care pathway – fully funded, standardised, and designed with contributions from patients
It exists in fragments already. Scotland, Wales and some English regions have piloted versions. But what is needed is the UK-wide political decision that fibromyalgia is real, common, and deserves structured care, not dismissal.
That – combined with mandatory clinician education and a shift away from drug-first care – would end decades of neglect.
It wouldn’t cure fibromyalgia.
But it would stop the NHS worsening it.
Share this post:
- ☕ Support Vox Political on Ko-fi or donate via PayPal
- 📘 Buy our books — political analysis and satire you won’t find elsewhere
- 📨 Join the mailing list for real headlines, direct to your inbox
- 🔗 Follow us on Facebook and Twitter/X
