Bolitics The New Condem Government

[MakemineVanilla]

 

The truth is that the only industries in the UK these days which are capable of paying a living wage are those which produce high added-value luxury products.

 

Most, if not all, vehicle manufacturers have their cheap models built in low-wage economies and only make high-added value models, like Jags and Land Rovers in the UK.

 

Creating jobs which can add enough value to justify a living wage is a huge problem for a developed economy like the UK.

None of that's true, though, which makes it a bit weak as an argument. I may be being unfair, and if so apologise, but something like 3 quarters of all women in work, and over 80% of men earn more than the living wage. Basiclly 80%+ of jobs pay at or above the living wage. It's across all sectors from cleaning jobs to obviously ones like Banking and Finance and so on. It could and should be more, but to say only high vale added occupations can afford it is (if that was your intent) just untrue.

There are as many or more cars made in the UK these days than for a very very long time. Something like 1.5 million cars a year are made here. They're not all jags and LRs.

There should be more focus still on manufacturing. We're good at it, have the educated and skilled workforce to do it and should as a nation act to stop short termism and the exporting of jobs to low wage economies abroad.

 

 

 

I see where you are coming from.

 

You assume I mean the political definition of a 'living wage', which is set at £7.65 (£1.34 more than minimum wage?) an hour outside London and £8.80 in London.

 

I don't actually think most people would consider £14k a year as sufficient income but obviously with the UK mean set at £26k, it is no surprise to find that 80% earn more than £14k.

 

I would define a living wage as one where the government didn't feel the need to contribute tax credits to bring it up to a wage you can live on.

 

I don't think there can be much dispute over the link between wages and added-value, and anyone who has stood in a supermarket check-out queue will have seen someone adding value a few pence at a time by swiping a customers' groceries. I just say that it is easier to add value by building a £60k car at the Jaguar at Castle Vale, than swiping groceries at the Sainsbury's across the road.

 

I simply make the case that in a modern economy where the cost of living and the threshold of relative poverty is so high, fewer jobs are capable of generating enough added value to pay enough to get above that threshold.

 

If you reject my vehicle manufacturing example (although I do say 'mostly'), then perhaps you will accept the example of shoemakers of Northampton, where the manufacturers of cheap shoes have long gone and it is only the expensive shoemakers like Church's remain.

 

This illustrates what I mean, that the 'comparative value' the British economy enjoys is adding value through craftsmanship.

[mockingbird_franklin]

I'm not surprised they voted against it. The mirror says we could get 3 million out of a pot of 3 billion across 27 member states. Surely we should be getting a bit closer to the 111 million that everyone else is getting, shouldn't we?

You are probably right, After all I doubt any other member state has so doggedly committed such a determined assault on the poor, the disabled  and disadvantaged, There may be states with poorer people but I can't see many actively making those poorer slide into a deeper state of poverty though mumbo-jumbo ideological driven policy. If we applied guidelines for distribution using such criteria we should be in in line for the majority of that 3billion if not all of it, Slight Irony to suggest that the party that has done most in regard to increasing wealth and earnings inequality would turn down money to help the poorest based on wanting a fairer share. Thought I may be willing to admit, Maybe this is a sign of the beginning of a social conscience from the Tory party and turning down the 3million because they feel they should get much more is the first signs of them admitting the increased poverty they are inflicting on people through their unjust and unfair target driven sanction and benefit reduction program.

[peterms]

The stuff about Labour in the Sun is just Murdoch ensuring his horse wins the next election. Press Barons have manipulated the news agenda to defend their interests for as long as there have been newspapers. Ever was and will be so its what Newspapers are for. To hear those of a leftist persuasion bemoaning the fact that the paper that got Bliar elected in 1997 is now kicking Labour around at will looks for all the world like a jilted lover bitching about the new girlfriend.

 

There weren't too many complaints about the treatment of politicians and potential libel claims when the press runs stories about paedo ex Tory ministers, in fact, several posters on here seemed to positively relish the attention the story was getting. To bemoan the Suns treatment of Harman, Dromy and Hewitt is hypocrisy of the highest order.  

 

You seem to be suggesting that arguing for the reduction of the age of consent and child rape are equivalent.

 

There's a perfectly good argument that children aged 14 are unlikely to be mature enough to give real consent and are open to manipulation by older people who engineer a situation of apparent consent, and that the 1976 NCCL line would have given rise to a lot of exploitation, if implemented.  I would agree with that view.

 

But putting forward a line of argument that most of us would disagree with, and raping children, are two entirely different things, no?

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

 

The truth is that the only industries in the UK these days which are capable of paying a living wage are those which produce high added-value luxury products.

 

Most, if not all, vehicle manufacturers have their cheap models built in low-wage economies and only make high-added value models, like Jags and Land Rovers in the UK.

 

Creating jobs which can add enough value to justify a living wage is a huge problem for a developed economy like the UK.

None of that's true, though, which makes it a bit weak as an argument. I may be being unfair, and if so apologise, but something like 3 quarters of all women in work, and over 80% of men earn more than the living wage. Basiclly 80%+ of jobs pay at or above the living wage. It's across all sectors from cleaning jobs to obviously ones like Banking and Finance and so on. It could and should be more, but to say only high vale added occupations can afford it is (if that was your intent) just untrue.

There are as many or more cars made in the UK these days than for a very very long time. Something like 1.5 million cars a year are made here. They're not all jags and LRs.

There should be more focus still on manufacturing. We're good at it, have the educated and skilled workforce to do it and should as a nation act to stop short termism and the exporting of jobs to low wage economies abroad.

 

 

I see where you are coming from.

 

You assume I mean the political definition of a 'living wage', which is set at £7.65 (£1.34 more than minimum wage?) an hour outside London and £8.80 in London.

 

I don't actually think most people would consider £14k a year as sufficient income but obviously with the UK mean set at £26k, it is no surprise to find that 80% earn more than £14k.

 

I would define a living wage as one where the government didn't feel the need to contribute tax credits to bring it up to a wage you can live on.

 

I don't think there can be much dispute over the link between wages and added-value, and anyone who has stood in a supermarket check-out queue will have seen someone adding value a few pence at a time by swiping a customers' groceries. I just say that it is easier to add value by building a £60k car at the Jaguar at Castle Vale, than swiping groceries at the Sainsbury's across the road.

 

I simply make the case that in a modern economy where the cost of living and the threshold of relative poverty is so high, fewer jobs are capable of generating enough added value to pay enough to get above that threshold.

 

If you reject my vehicle manufacturing example (although I do say 'mostly'), then perhaps you will accept the example of shoemakers of Northampton, where the manufacturers of cheap shoes have long gone and it is only the expensive shoemakers like Church's remain.

 

This illustrates what I mean, that the 'comparative value' the British economy enjoys is adding value through craftsmanship.

 

If you only look at one side of a problem you can only ever see a half cocked answer,

 

Why is £14k an income that can't sustain a reasonable living standard, the real reasons behind inflation outstripping Income rises? that's the real question you need to ask,

Edited February 28, 2014 by mockingbird_franklin

[Eames]

 

The stuff about Labour in the Sun is just Murdoch ensuring his horse wins the next election. Press Barons have manipulated the news agenda to defend their interests for as long as there have been newspapers. Ever was and will be so its what Newspapers are for. To hear those of a leftist persuasion bemoaning the fact that the paper that got Bliar elected in 1997 is now kicking Labour around at will looks for all the world like a jilted lover bitching about the new girlfriend.

 

There weren't too many complaints about the treatment of politicians and potential libel claims when the press runs stories about paedo ex Tory ministers, in fact, several posters on here seemed to positively relish the attention the story was getting. To bemoan the Suns treatment of Harman, Dromy and Hewitt is hypocrisy of the highest order.  

 

You seem to be suggesting that arguing for the reduction of the age of consent and child rape are equivalent.

 

There's a perfectly good argument that children aged 14 are unlikely to be mature enough to give real consent and are open to manipulation by older people who engineer a situation of apparent consent, and that the 1976 NCCL line would have given rise to a lot of exploitation, if implemented.  I would agree with that view.

 

But putting forward a line of argument that most of us would disagree with, and raping children, are two entirely different things, no?

 

I'm not conflating the two arguements at all. Child Rape and a discussion about the age of consent are not the same.

 

The subject of the disagreement in this situation is irrelevent however. The Sun have found a stick to beat Labour with as is their want. The fact they are able to link it (how ever tenously) to something as morally abhorrant as paedophillia for them is a bonus. It is strange that some regular posters in this thread appear to regard this approach to journalism with a sort of horror that was not evident when another equally insubstantiated  story about politicians of a different colour and paedophilla was reported. I would go so far to say as that those posters appeared to revel in the fact that a Tory ex-minister was linked to such behaviour. Granted one accusation is far more serious than the other however, the real thrust of my arguement was that when a party with whom certain posters have more of an affiliation are involved in such a distasteful story they, in the words of Cpl Jones "Don't like it up 'em" and  then agree with such tactics when it suits their agenda.

 

Edited to remove the most heinous of homophone crimes.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Eames

[peterms]

It is strange that some regular posters in this thread appear to regard this approach to journalism with a sort of horror that was not evident when another equally insubstantiated  story about politicians of a different colour and paedophilla was reported. I would go so far to say as that those posters appeared to revel in the fact that a Tory ex-minister was linked to such behaviour. Granted one accusation is far more serious than the other however, the real thrust of my arguement was that when a party with whom certain posters have more of an affiliation are involved in such a distasteful story they, in the words of Cpl Jones "Don't like it up 'em" and  then agree with such tactics when it suits there agenda.

I think if the press treated stories according to their importance rather than who they might damage, most people would be happier.

 

In this case, there have been a lot of people - bloggers, child abuse victims and others - saying for a very long time that some of the paedophile networks include people who are rich, famous and well-connected; that this is known to the police but has not been acted on; that the dossier of evidence collated by (Tory) MP Geoffrey Dickens and personally delivered to then Home Secretary Leon Brittan has been destroyed; and a lot of other similar statements.

 

The intensity of the attention the NCCL story has received in the national press over the last week is astonishing, and the whole thrust of the story is to suggest that the deputy leader of the Labour Party colludes with paedophilia.  At the same time, alleged cover-ups of real existing child rape are ignored by the very organisations which are supposed to be exposing these things, in the same way that they didn't investigate the widely circulating tales about Savile at the time, and now use it as a platform to attack the BBC licence fee for their own interests.

 

I don't think you'd be seeing too many complaints on here if, say, Jack Straw had been the Home Secretary in question and the press had been relentless in investigating what happened to the evidence and why it was destroyed.  It's the vast gulf in the way these two things (as an example) are handled that is the problem. 

[Eames]

They are handled in that way because that is Murdoch's will. He wants his current crop of pet politicians to remain in power so he's doing them a favour. Just like he did favours for Bliar and co in 1997. Again, for those on the left to condemn such behaviour is hypocrisy on a gargantuan scale.

 

I fully accept its a wholly undesirable approach to journalism and politics but ever it was and shall it be so. Both sides of the political divide have benefitted and suffered as a result of such tactics for for ANYONE to moan about them is ridiculous. You'd think they'd learn not to rely on him really wouldn't you?

[peterms]

Actually, those on the left were extremely critical of Blair and Mandelson at the time, for cosying up to Murdoch (and Ecclestone, and others).  They were also extremely critical of the role and power of extremely rich people in controlling the media and influencing public opinion.

 

Your suggestion that people on the left complain about Murdoch and his ilk only when it suits them is both untrue and unfair.

[Risso]

The fact that David Cameron was once a member of a student group who said some horrible things about Nelson Mandela, plus his membership of the Bullingdon Club has been mentioned on here regularly as a stick to beat him with.  If it was a Conservcative MP being linked to some dodgy padeophile group, then I doubt that would pass without comment either.  A very good example of Drat's beloved 'h' word.

[snowychap]

Both sides of the political divide have benefitted and suffered as a result of such tactics for for ANYONE to moan about them is ridiculous.

 

You would appear to be conflating a whole load of things throughout your posts but I'll take this one sentence - the inference I have drawn is that ANYONE (your emphasis) of any political persuasion has no place 'moaning' (that's such a pejorative way to describe people expressing an opinion but that's by the by) about the goings on of tabloids (perhaps specifically Murdoch's ones) because politicians on both (or all) sides have at one time or another gained from this undesirable approach to journalism. That may be incorrect and it may be that your implication refers, solely, to politicians (or perhaps people specifically supporting a party at one time or any other).

If so then you have a point, if not then you spectacularly miss the possibility (often repeated until people are either red/blue in the face - whichever is their wont) that being largely either 'left' or 'right' does not automatically make one a supporter of whichever party is supposed to be, generally, representing that 'wing' or those that happen to be leading whichever party (or perhaps more accurately using said party as a vehicle for their own advancement).

 

Edited February 28, 2014 by snowychap

[Eames]

 

Both sides of the political divide have benefitted and suffered as a result of such tactics for for ANYONE to moan about them is ridiculous.

 

You would appear to be conflating a whole load of things throughout your posts but I'll take this one sentence - the inference I have drawn is that ANYONE (your emphasis) of any political persuasion has no place 'moaning' (that's such a pejorative way to describe people expressing an opinion but that's by the by) about the goings on of tabloids (perhaps specifically Murdoch's ones) because politicians on both (or all) sides have at one time or another gained from this undesirable approach to journalism. That may be incorrect and it may be that your implication refers, solely, to politicians (or perhaps people specifically supporting a party at one time or any other).

If so then you have a point, if not then you spectacularly miss the possibility (often repeated until people are either red/blue in the face - whichever is their wont) that being largely either 'left' or 'right' does not automatically make one a supporter of whichever party is supposed to be, generally, representing that 'wing' or those that happen to be leading whichever party (or perhaps more accurately using said party as a vehicle for their own advancement).

 

 

I wasn't clear but by "both sides of the political divide" I did mean "politicians"

[snowychap]

I wasn't clear but by "both sides of the political divide" I did mean "politicians"

In which case, I apologize for my OTT response.

[mockingbird_franklin]

Nice of IDS to help this man out poverty and the dispicable life on Benefits

 

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/11043378.Man_starved_after_benefits_were_cut/

Edited February 28, 2014 by mockingbird_franklin

[chrisp65]

Is everyone aware? august bank holiday

 

I presumed it was a prank until I checked it's real!

[Eames]

See that causes me a problem.

 

I don't think the  Bank Holiday should be named Margaret Thatcher Day, but I won't sign the petition based on the reasoning given.

 

:/

[chrisp65]

I too think listing out reasons was a pretty dumb thing to do.

Always keep it simple. Minimises opportunity for division and factionalism.

[mockingbird_franklin]

See that causes me a problem.

 

I don't think the  Bank Holiday should be named Margaret Thatcher Day, but I won't sign the petition based on the reasoning given.

 

:/

Is a dilemma, is it better to voice opposition to something you are against if it means doing so under reasons you don't agree with, or to not voice disagreement because of that disagreement with the way it is voiced  and possibly see it happen, Not saying a petition on it's own would stop it happening, I guess raising awareness and then seeing a huge public reaction against it is the real goal

[MakemineVanilla]

Why is £14k an income that can't sustain a reasonable living standard, the real reasons behind inflation outstripping Income rises? that's the real question you need to ask,

 

The trouble is that a reasonable standard of living is not an absolute but based upon what amounts to relative poverty - below 60% of the mean earnings. 

 

As the mean rises so more people are categorised as being in poverty.

 

So as more skilful workers become more productive (they add more value) and their pay increases as capital intensity increases, people in under-capitalised industries get left behind because they can't increase the amount of value they add which depresses their earnings.

 

That is the problem with a capital intensive modern economy, it creates inequality and the spending power of better paid workers causes inflation of finite assets like houses, which excludes low-paid workers from the market, while increasing the market rate for rent.

 

Add in the higher inflation of staples and the low-skilled worker is even worse off.

 

Seems pretty logical to me and is the rational basis for the minimum wage.

 

Denying that there is a link between a worker's ability to add value and wages just seems perverse.

[chrisp65]

It's a model that presumes added value and the bar for measuring poverty are linked with the amount of shit you can buy.

 

But if we break the link with buying shit, that's our whole system undermined......

[villaajax]

Is everyone aware? august bank holiday

 

I presumed it was a prank until I checked it's real!

 

A day to celebrate Thatcher's death. Fair enough.