The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

Given the average wage is around £14.80, then we're currently at about 40% of that. I don't have any analyses of the sensitivity, but I suspect a 10/11% increase wouldn't break the economy.

That's not what I asked!

I know. As I said, I don't have anything to show where the likely breaking point would be, but that wasn't what I was saying in the first place. My contention was that NMW + 10% wouldn't be the breaking point.

Ok, so you must have an instinct in mind in order to be able to say that?!

It may impact a single business or even a collection of businesses. There's about 1.2m people on the NMW, the majority of those not at the £6.31 figure as they're under 21. If I assume they all were on £6.31 so would get a rise od 0.69p per hour, the increase would be circa £1.4Bn. Our GDP is about £1.4Tn...Din't see that there would be a major dint in that...given the sectors the jobs are predominantly in.

[thebish]

but when those trying to do the right thing by working for a living, are worse off than many that don't it's a poor, poor do. Time for a sizeable increase in the minimum wage - say 11%?

Is it feck. It's time for reductions in benefits and a further review as to what constitutes a plausible claim. How would you fund this increase to the minimum wage, Harry?

which benefits? and reduce how far? (out of interest)

[thebish]

So lemmie get this right. We're going to freeze public servants pay, because we're still in the days of austerity. Except some public servants, that already get paid more than most of the rest of the public servants, and we're going to give them 11%.

Bent fcukers.

I could not have expressed my opinion more succinctly. Bent fckers indeed. And those public servants who get 11% are the same public servants that freeze the other public servants wages, and because it's the one's who get 11%'s fault that we are deep in austerity. Bent, bent bent fckers.

I can't help but think that the level of this award has SOME connection to the pay-expectations of those making the decisions... here they are... http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/Ab ... utive.aspx

I suspect a different outcome would have followed if the board had been made up of people paid a lot closer to the average UK wage...

[Bruce Rioja]

but when those trying to do the right thing by working for a living, are worse off than many that don't it's a poor, poor do. Time for a sizeable increase in the minimum wage - say 11%?

Is it feck. It's time for reductions in benefits and a further review as to what constitutes a plausible claim. How would you fund this increase to the minimum wage, Harry?

which benefits? and reduce how far? (out of interest)

More a generalism, bish, regarding the status quo whereby it's beneficial to some not to work. Cameron's recent benefits cap is an absolute damp squib - claimants can still get paid the same for sitting at home as they can for if they landed a £35K a year position. That simply can't be right, can it?

[thebish]

generalisms are fine - the detail is much harder (which is why I asked)

the coalition cap of £26,000 will mean reduced benefits for about 58,000 households... there are (I think) about 26,000,000 households in the UK...

so - those households receiving over 26,000 in benefits amount to about 0.22% - about a fifth of 1% of all the households in the UK..

the average uk claimant receives about £4500 per year.

so - it's a tiny price to pay in the grand scheme of the UK economy - and (to my mind) well worth it to ensure that there is a safety net big enough and comprehensive enough to be any use. Yes - it is open to abuse - that's human nature - but the amounts involved are still tiny (compared - say - to tax fraud) and I am willing to accept a small amount of abuse of the system to ensure that it's there for those that actually need it.

so - for me - no - not time to reduce benefits - you would find yourself hitting the most vulnerable members of our society very hard indeed...

[Bruce Rioja]

Bish - my remarks were in direct response to Harry's post. I'm not on about reducing 'all' benefits, not at all. Far from it. My fault for the lack of clarity.

[thebish]

Bish - my remarks were in direct response to Harry's post. I'm not on about reducing 'all' benefits, not at all. Far from it. My fault for the lack of clarity.

I know they were, Bruce, and - despite appearances - not looking to pick an argument! I was just interested!! if not all benefits - and you won't say which - then I'm really not sure what you are proposing... that's all!

if the response to raising MPs pay is cutting benefits - then that's certainly not a stance I'd cheer for! I would, however, cheer for a proposal (as Harry was proffering) to increase the minimum wage...

if we DO have cash to spend - and it seems we do as we will be doling out tax breaks to people who happen to be married and giving free school meals across the board... then (personally) I'd rather spend it on helping those who ARE working earn enough so that they don't also have to be on benefits and not indirectly subsidising their employers for paying low wages...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Bish - my remarks were in direct response to Harry's post. I'm not on about reducing 'all' benefits, not at all. Far from it. My fault for the lack of clarity.

I know they were, Bruce, and - despite appearances - not looking to pick an argument! I was just interested!! if not all benefits - and you won't say which - then I'm really not sure what you are proposing... that's all!

if the response to raising MPs pay is cutting benefits - then that's certainly not a stance I'd cheer for! I would, however, cheer for a proposal (as Harry was proffering) to increase the minimum wage...

if we DO have cash to spend - and it seems we do as we will be doling out tax breaks to people who happen to be married and giving free school meals across the board... then (personally) I'd rather spend it on helping those who ARE working earn enough so that they don't also have to be on benefits and not indirectly subsidising their employers for paying low wages...

One doesn't happen to be married - (or rather if one happens to be married I doubt that status would last for very long) - one is committed to being married...

And it certainly isn't a doling out of a tax break - it happens to be a very limited ability to transfer a small proportion of one allowance to another allowance. It is hardly like my wife and I are going to be receiving a general doling out to us feckless married b*stards, as we both work and therefore no benefit would accrue even if we were allowed to transfer this portion of our allowances (which we won't be).

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Given the average wage is around £14.80, then we're currently at about 40% of that. I don't have any analyses of the sensitivity, but I suspect a 10/11% increase wouldn't break the economy.

That's not what I asked!

I know. As I said, I don't have anything to show where the likely breaking point would be, but that wasn't what I was saying in the first place. My contention was that NMW + 10% wouldn't be the breaking point.

Ok, so you must have an instinct in mind in order to be able to say that?!

It may impact a single business or even a collection of businesses. There's about 1.2m people on the NMW, the majority of those not at the £6.31 figure as they're under 21. If I assume they all were on £6.31 so would get a rise od 0.69p per hour, the increase would be circa £1.4Bn. Our GDP is about £1.4Tn...Din't see that there would be a major dint in that...given the sectors the jobs are predominantly in.

"Don't see that there would be a major dint in that...given the sectors the jobs are predominantly in."

I'm sorry, but that is totally meaningless.

As you suggest above, the minimum wage question is best discussed in terms of sensitivity analyses - this talk of % of GDP is surely an irrelevant distraction?

[Bruce Rioja]

Bish - my remarks were in direct response to Harry's post. I'm not on about reducing 'all' benefits, not at all. Far from it. My fault for the lack of clarity.

I know they were, Bruce, and - despite appearances - not looking to pick an argument! I was just interested!! if not all benefits - and you won't say which - then I'm really not sure what you are proposing... that's all!

The benefits that tip the balance in favour of staying at home when it becomes more lucrative than going to work (as per Harry's post). Those benefits. DC's paid the problem lip service and nothing else. You say increase the workers wages, I say cut top end benefits.

[Lord Kangana]

Surely freezing benefits and increasing wages would achieve, much more easily, the end which you seek (indeed, I suspect most people seek) more easily, wouldn't it though Bruce?

[thebish]

Bish - my remarks were in direct response to Harry's post. I'm not on about reducing 'all' benefits, not at all. Far from it. My fault for the lack of clarity.

I know they were, Bruce, and - despite appearances - not looking to pick an argument! I was just interested!! if not all benefits - and you won't say which - then I'm really not sure what you are proposing... that's all!

The benefits that tip the balance in favour of staying at home when it becomes more lucrative than going to work (as per Harry's post). Those benefits. DC's paid the problem lip service and nothing else. You say increase the workers wages, I say cut top end benefits.

problem is, Bruce - that would be different for different people... for some people, the balance is tipped by losing free school meals.. so - cut them?

for some - it might be free prescriptions... cut them?

[Hoboh]

Minimum wage should be about eight n half quid per hour.

You get now’t till at least 2 years NI contributions and income tax have been paid in.

Dole paid for no more than 12 months.

You should have to while in work, take out insurance to cover any future housing benefit.

Child benefit stopped after 2 sprogs.

Kids prescriptions for the middle class should be at half price, not free for under 16's.

Local council services such as refuse, gritting, grass cutting and a few other things should be tendered for nationally, as a collective, to get the best deals.

No Trident replacement or HS2

No MP pay rise

No immigration open doors.

You trade in this country, you pay your whack of tax or fook off! (Capitalism, one goes someone else sees an opportunity, so sod off Amazon you shits).

Raise by 50% stamp duty on homes over £1.25 million and Triple stamp duty on homes over £2 million.

WE LEAVE THE SOVIET REPUBLIC OF EUROPE

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Local council services such as refuse, gritting, grass cutting and a few other things should be tendered for nationally, as a collective, to get the best deals.

Rather than guarantee only big business gets these contracts, which they would with your suggestion, it would be better to have better procurement rules and procedures to ensure quality as well as value. Part of the problem is a lot of public procurement is based on headline low prices, leading to either sub-standard service/quality, or getting badly stung elsewhere in the contract.

[thebish]

Local council services such as refuse, gritting, grass cutting and a few other things should be tendered for nationally, as a collective, to get the best deals.

hmmm... there was an episode of the simpsons which exposed the pitfalls of this approach!

[Hoboh]

Local council services such as refuse, gritting, grass cutting and a few other things should be tendered for nationally, as a collective, to get the best deals.

hmmm... there was an episode of the simpsons which exposed the pitfalls of this approach!

Half the muppets in local councils are out of their depth in delivering cost effective, reliable services unless it belongs to a mate of a mate, nudge, nudge.
Bolton council are so squeaky clean they refuse to allow an investigation into their planing proceedures, you'd think they'd be more than happy to let it go through if all was well and good. Time will tell.

[William the White]

generalisms are fine - the detail is much harder (which is why I asked)

the coalition cap of £26,000 will mean reduced benefits for about 58,000 households... there are (I think) about 26,000,000 households in the UK...

so - those households receiving over 26,000 in benefits amount to about 0.22% - about a fifth of 1% of all the households in the UK..

the average uk claimant receives about £4500 per year.

so - it's a tiny price to pay in the grand scheme of the UK economy - and (to my mind) well worth it to ensure that there is a safety net big enough and comprehensive enough to be any use. Yes - it is open to abuse - that's human nature - but the amounts involved are still tiny (compared - say - to tax fraud) and I am willing to accept a small amount of abuse of the system to ensure that it's there for those that actually need it.

so - for me - no - not time to reduce benefits - you would find yourself hitting the most vulnerable members of our society very hard indeed...

The political genius that is I D Smith has managed to cap 19000 so far - the majority in London, where housing costs are so high.

[Prufrock]

It's yet another area where it's taken for granted that what is best for the market is best for the economy which is best for society.

It depresses me that when something is proposed which might be worse for the economy no-one ever even asks any more, "nevertheless, is it worth it?". Even if the answer was 'no' 999/1000, I'd like someone to be asking.

[Bruce Rioja]

Kids prescriptions for the middle class should be at half price, not free for under 16's.

I have an egg skelter and two expensive bottles of Borolo, but I'm from a single parent family. What's the criteria here?

[Lord Kangana]

You can ask the question Pru. That's how the world changes. Very, very, very slowly. Every journey has a first step.