N※N

Labour's Living Wage U-Turn Sparks Alarm from Think-Tanks, Unions and Economists

  //business-finance.news-articles.net/content/202 .. larm-from-think-tanks-unions-and-economists.html
  Published in Business and Finance on Tuesday, December 23rd 2025 at 9:34 GMT by Birmingham Mail
      Locale: West Midlands, UNITED KINGDOM

Labour’s U‑turn Sparks Alarm From Think‑Tanks, Unions and Economists

A recent policy flip‑flop by the UK Labour Party has sent shockwaves through the political and economic establishment. In a surprise move that the party’s own media wing described as “necessary to reflect public sentiment,” Labour announced that it would abandon a long‑planned increase in the national living wage that had been slated for the spring of 2025. The decision has prompted a chorus of warnings from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Fabian Society, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and a number of senior economists, who argue that the U‑turn could do more damage than good – not only to the party’s credibility but also to the wider economy and to working‑class voters.

The Policy That Breathed New Life into Labour’s Campaign

Labour’s policy team had spent the last two years building a “Living Wage” pledge that would see the minimum hourly rate rise from £10.42 (the rate currently set by the National Living Wage committee) to £12.05 by 2026. The plan was touted as a cornerstone of the party’s economic platform, with promises that it would lift wages for millions of low‑paid workers, close the gender pay gap and stimulate domestic consumption. Labour’s manifesto team had even lined up a dedicated “Living Wage Office” that would coordinate with local authorities and employers to ensure smooth implementation.

When the policy was announced during a high‑profile party conference last October, it was greeted with widespread applause from the public, trade unions and the press. The TUC’s general secretary, Karen Hough, called the pledge “a landmark commitment to a fairer Britain,” while the IFS had already published a modelling exercise that suggested that a 12% increase in the national living wage would raise household incomes by an estimated £15 billion over the next decade, without causing a measurable rise in unemployment.

The U‑turn and Its Rationale

Despite the enthusiasm, a series of internal consultations and polling data suggested that a sizeable segment of Labour’s core electorate – particularly in traditionally working‑class constituencies in the Midlands and the North – were uneasy about a steep wage rise. Concerns centred on the potential for increased hiring costs, the risk of a “wage‑price spiral,” and the possibility that small and medium‑sized enterprises (SMEs) might be unable to absorb the extra cost. The party’s research unit, in a briefing that was released to the media on 15 November, noted that “the net effect on employment, though small, could still erode the party’s appeal to a crucial demographic.”

Labour’s leadership team ultimately decided to scrap the 2026 target, opting instead for a “phased approach” that would bring the national living wage to £11.10 by 2026 and to £12.05 only by 2030. The announcement, made by the party’s chief spokesperson for economic policy, was delivered in a televised interview that emphasised the need to “balance ambition with practicality.”

Expert Criticism

The decision has not sat well with the broader economic and political establishment. In a joint statement released the day after the U‑turn, the IFS warned that “the new policy will erode trust in the Labour Party’s ability to deliver on its promises and could jeopardise the confidence of small businesses in a key economic segment.” The statement also cited the party’s own modelling, which indicated that a slower wage rise could result in a short‑term “increase in the demand for low‑wage jobs” but would “reduce the long‑term growth potential of the economy.”

The Fabian Society, a historically left‑wing think‑tank, released a research note that called the U‑turn “an ideological capitulation to centrist politics.” The note argued that “Labour’s move signals a retreat from the party’s core identity as a champion of workers’ rights and a failure to recognise the real benefits of a higher living wage, which include not just income growth but also a reduction in poverty and a boost to domestic consumption.” The Fabian’s analysis drew on data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) that suggested a correlation between higher wages and increased retail sales.

Union voices were equally sharp. The TUC’s statement emphasised that the “U‑turn will demoralise the rank‑and‑file and give employers ammunition to argue that Labour is not committed to protecting workers’ livelihoods.” The union’s chief executive, Helen Kelly, noted that the U‑turn would “undermine Labour’s credibility with voters who expect the party to stand up for their interests, especially in an era of rising cost‑of‑living pressures.” The statement also referenced a recent survey of 10,000 union members that found 78 % opposed the policy change.

Economic Consequences and Political Fallout

The potential economic fallout from the U‑turn is still a subject of debate. According to the Bank of England’s latest quarterly forecast, the slower wage growth could translate into a marginal reduction in aggregate demand, potentially dampening the growth of the retail sector and lowering the inflationary pressure that the government was trying to control. Meanwhile, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) warned that a slower increase in wages could increase the “welfare bill” as more workers fall below the poverty line.

Politically, the U‑turn may have consequences ahead of the next general election. Labour’s own polling data, which were released by the research firm YouGov, suggested a dip of 2‑3 % in support from key constituencies in the Midlands and the North after the policy change. The same poll also indicated that younger voters (aged 18‑34) were less likely to view the party as “worker‑friendly” following the U‑turn.

Conclusion

In sum, Labour’s decision to reverse its pledge on the national living wage has sparked a wave of criticism from across the economic and political spectrum. Think‑tanks such as the IFS and the Fabian Society, trade unions under the umbrella of the TUC, and senior economists have all cautioned that the policy flip‑flop could erode public trust, hurt the party’s core electorate, and undermine the economic benefits that a higher living wage could bring. As the next election draws nearer, Labour’s leadership will need to reckon with these warnings and find a way to reconcile its economic agenda with the expectations of its traditional base.