Show the Working

Introduce a £15 minimum wage and 10:1 pay ratio cap

Green · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Green’s policy “Introduce a £15 minimum wage and 10:1 pay ratio cap” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Public finances & the next generation — Genuinely contested

n/a · low confidence

Whether this package improves or worsens public finances depends on contested estimates from advocacy bodies on opposing sides; no independent fiscal authority has scored the net effect. The Employment Allowance rise is a concrete Exchequer cost, but how much the minimum wage hike raises in tax and saves in benefits is genuinely disputed.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the additional income-tax and NI receipts plus benefit savings from a £15 minimum wage outweigh the Exchequer cost of doubling the Employment Allowance and any employment-level drag — a question only independent fiscal modelling (OBR/IFS) could resolve but none is provided.

Our reading: Two concrete fiscal levers are at play. First, increasing the Employment Allowance to £10,000 reduces NIC revenue — a direct, unconditional Exchequer cost. Second, a £15 minimum wage could raise tax and NI receipts and reduce benefit payments if employment holds up, but could reduce them if job losses materialise. The only fiscal estimates provided come from advocacy sources on opposite sides: PEF projects a £25.1bn net improvement; CPS projects a net cost. Neither is independent; both must be down-weighted equally. No OBR or IFS whole-policy fiscal costing is present in the evidence. The pay ratio element is explicitly a 'campaign', carrying no statutory or budgetary instrument, so it contributes nothing certain to the fiscal account. The employment uncertainty matters here: if the Resolution Foundation's view that £15 is not viable in the short-to-medium term is correct, employment-level reductions would trim the projected tax-receipt gains, potentially flipping a projected surplus into a net cost. Absent independent fiscal scoring, the evidence is genuinely split between credible-but-partisan projections, making a confident direction impossible. This is a real crux, not a lazy hedge — the sign of the fiscal effect depends entirely on an employment and behavioural parameter that the available evidence does not resolve.

Prosperity & living standards — Mixed picture

moderate · moderate confidence

A £15 minimum wage would raise living standards for millions of low-paid workers, but credible independent analysis warns it could cost tens of thousands of jobs and risks being too fast to implement safely; the pay-ratio cap is only a campaign pledge with no enforcement mechanism, so its real-world effect is uncertain at best.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the pace of the £15 minimum wage increase is too fast for the labour market to absorb without significant job losses, particularly for young workers and in low-margin sectors.

Our reading: This policy has real upside and real downside for O13, justifying a mixed verdict. On the positive side, a £15 minimum wage would materially raise living standards for an estimated 14 million workers, with projected income gains of 6.9% for the poorest 70% of households. The Employment Allowance increase to £10,000 partially offsets costs for small businesses. Past minimum wage rises have not produced statistically significant employment losses per the IFS and Low Pay Commission — so the mechanism for lifting living standards is plausible and grounded in historical precedent. On the negative side, the pace of increase to £15 is the key risk to O13's productivity and business dynamism indicators. The Resolution Foundation — an independent institution — judges this rate of increase 'not economically viable in the short-to-medium term', and projects 85,000 job losses from the combined labour cost shock. The Bank of England has linked sharp youth rate increases to rising youth unemployment (13.7%), which directly harms economic opportunity. These are threats to firm investment decisions and business dynamism in low-margin sectors. The pay ratio cap element must be treated as nearly negligible on O13: the policy uses the soft verb 'campaign for', with no committed enforcement mechanism, statutory duty, or quantified target. It is aspiration, not instrument. Even if enacted, the evidence points to easy circumvention through non-salary compensation, reducing its real-world effect on prosperity. Net effect: genuine upside on living standards for lower earners, offset by credible risks to employment levels, youth opportunity, and business dynamism — particularly given the pace. Both sides rest on cited, independent evidence.

Inequality & fair shares — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

A £15 minimum wage would raise the floor for millions of low-paid workers, shrinking the gap between the bottom and the middle. The 10:1 pay ratio is only a campaign commitment with no binding mechanism, and job-loss risks for young and low-paid workers could partially offset the gains.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether employment losses among low-paid and young workers (the very people the policy targets) are large enough to cancel the income gains from the wage floor rise.

Our reading: The dominant mechanism here is the £15 minimum wage floor. The measurable evidence (E2) shows prior minimum wage rises have already narrowed hourly pay inequality substantially, and the projected gains (E3, E5) suggest a further large uplift concentrated on low earners. Regional distribution data (E4) points to narrowing of geographic inequality too, an explicit O14 indicator. These are the strongest pro-equality signals. The main countervailing risk is job losses, particularly for young and low-paid workers (E9, E15). If firms shed low-paid jobs in response, some intended beneficiaries lose employment entirely — worsening their position. However, the IFS and Low Pay Commission evidence on past increases (E18, E19) suggests employment effects have historically been small, making large-scale reversal unlikely. The Resolution Foundation's projection of 85,000 job losses (E10) should be weighed against 14 million potential pay rises (E5) — a real but proportionately modest offset. The 10:1 pay ratio is stated only as a campaign goal with no binding statutory instrument — this is a soft verb ('campaign for') with no committed mechanism. Under the threshold discipline rules, this alone cannot earn 'improves' credit. Its practical impact is further undermined by well-documented avoidance routes (E35). FTSE 100 CEO pay at 122× median (E30) shows the scale of the gap the cap targets, but without enforcement the cap's distributional effect is near-negligible. Overall: the minimum wage component has strong evidential support for narrowing the income gap at the bottom, with a real but historically modest job-loss risk. The pay ratio element adds little distributional effect given its non-binding nature. The net direction is 'improves' at moderate magnitude — the floor-raising effect is real and substantial, but uncertainty around youth employment and the ratio cap's ineffectiveness temper confidence to moderate.

Cost of living — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

A £15 minimum wage would raise take-home pay for up to 14 million workers, directly helping people afford essentials — but there is a real risk of some job losses and modest price rises that could partially offset the gains, especially for young workers.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the wage floor is set too high too fast to avoid significant job losses, particularly for young and part-time workers in hospitality and retail.

Our reading: The dominant effect on cost of living runs through take-home pay. A jump from £11.44 to £15 is a 31% increase in the wage floor, reaching up to 14 million workers, with the largest gains concentrated among lower-income households (poorest 70% projected +6.9% income). Regional distribution further targets areas where cost pressures are acute relative to earnings. These are the most direct and material channels for O2. The main countervailing risks are: (1) job losses — the IFS and Resolution Foundation both flag meaningful risks, though historical evidence from past NLW increases shows small, statistically insignificant employment effects; (2) price pass-through — theoretically plausible but historically modest according to the Low Pay Commission; (3) specific harm to young workers, where the Bank of England has linked recent youth rate increases to rising youth unemployment. The Employment Allowance increase to £10,000 partially insulates small businesses, reducing the likelihood of the worst employment outcomes among smaller employers. On balance, the evidence leans toward a net positive for cost of living for most workers currently in employment at or near minimum wage — particularly lower-income households in poorer regions. The competing risks are real but not sufficient to outweigh the direct wage gains given the historical evidence. The pace of the proposed increase remains the key uncertainty: if implemented rapidly, the employment and price risks are more likely to materialise, potentially offsetting part of the gain. The 10:1 pay ratio cap is likely to have negligible direct O2 impact for most households — evidence suggests circumvention is easy and trickle-down effects on shop-floor wages would be trivial in practice.

Good work & fair pay — Mixed picture

moderate · moderate confidence

A £15 minimum wage would raise pay for millions of workers, but credible analysts warn it could put some low-paid jobs at risk — especially for young people. The 10:1 pay ratio is easy to circumvent and its real-world effect on workers' pay is uncertain.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the £15 rate would cause significant job losses, particularly for young workers, or whether — as past minimum wage rises suggest — employment effects would be small.

Our reading: The £15 minimum wage is the dominant element of this policy for O4. The evidence clearly points to substantial potential gains for workers: 14 million could see pay rise, with disproportionate benefits in lower-wage regions, and a projected 6.9% income boost for the poorest 70% of households. The historical record of minimum wage increases in the UK — as documented by the Resolution Foundation and IFS — shows that past rises have substantially cut low pay without triggering large employment losses. This is the most relevant measurable baseline. However, credible institutional sources raise genuine concerns. The Resolution Foundation considers the pace to be non-viable in the short-to-medium term. The IFS warns of risk to low-paid jobs at this level. The Bank of England has linked sharp youth minimum wage rises to rising youth unemployment (13.7%). The Resolution Foundation modelled an 85,000 employment reduction from combined wage and NICs pressures. These are not fringe views, and the size of the proposed jump — from £11.44 to £15 — is larger than any previous UK rise, making direct historical extrapolation uncertain. The Employment Allowance increase partially offsets small business costs but applies to the employer as a whole rather than per employee, and some small businesses will still face higher net costs, especially given recent NIC threshold changes. The 10:1 pay ratio is stated as a campaign goal rather than legislation, and the evidence strongly suggests it is easily circumvented. Any benefit to lower workers from a compression of executive pay would likely be marginal in practice — one estimate suggests it could yield around £180 per year per shop worker in a large firm. On balance, the policy improves the pay of millions of low-wage workers — a clear gain for O4 — but introduces genuine risk of reduced employment opportunities, particularly for young workers, producing a mixed verdict. The magnitude is moderate because the pay gains are large but could be partly offset by reduced hiring.

Compare all parties on public finances & the next generation →Compare all parties on prosperity & living standards →Compare all parties on inequality & fair shares →Compare all parties on cost of living →Compare all parties on good work & fair pay →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home