Well, they have already had a go at lowering energy bills. But when policies are stolen, you can see why oppositions do not like to announce them. If there were one policy I'd like to see reviewed, though, it would be the Bedroom Tax. I am not sure what Labour's position is on that as I am not a Labour member (or even a firm supporter).
The coalition's policy on energy prices is very different (and more sensible) than Miliband's proposal, which was, frankly, insane. They haven't followed Miliband: they've sailed their own course, hopefully away from the rocks.
Miliband's in the unfortunate position that if the price cap was such a good thing to do, he could have done it - or at least proposed it - himself a little over three years ago. There was not a peep about it when he was in charge at DECC. Instead, he is on record as saying increased prices were inevitable. (1)
Goodness knows what that would have meant for the cost of living crisis.
We all know why: he was too busy listening to advice on energy policy from Z-list celebrities.
The Coalition's policy may well be more effective and more sensible. But we only got it because EdM raised the issue. Today's announcement from Osborne is also directly connected to the cost of living debate that Miliband started. I am not particularly interested in who introduces policies that benefit the lowest paid, I am much more interested in them being put into practice. If it is the Tories doing it because they feel that EdM has struck a chord that is fine by me. Obviously, looking at the politics of it - the Tories will hope to persuade voters that they are genuinely exercised by the fate of those on the minimum wage. We will see if they are successful in that.
"We only got it because EdM raised the issue"
I would suggest if it was a direct reaction to Ed M's 'announcement', then it would have occurred much earlier. Besides, the two are obviously very different things.
And you still cannot answer why Ed M - who in 2009 said energy prices rises were inevitable - now says they are too high. He thought everything was fine whilst he was at DECC, and did nothing to decrease prices, instead concentrating on increasing them.
By your thinking, Ed M can float anything, and a coalition policy in roughly the same area would somehow be a Labour victory, even if the proposed policy was very different. Only an idiot could claim that the coalition have 'stolen' Ed M's energy policy.
I really don't think the left can paint this is their win, Ed was talking about voluntary incentives for the "living wage" which is completely different to a mass raising of the minimum wage. I haven't heard a single mention of the minimum wage from Ed or the other Ed for a long time. It fell off Labour's agenda for some reason while the concentrated a fringe issue like the living wage.
As a Labour supporter, I agree. Labour completely missed an opportunity to make something of this issue with all their guff about giving employers "incentives" to pay a decent wage, rather than telling them "you're paying it whether you like it or not". No doubt their pathetically watered-down proposal was an attempt not to piss off businesses, but they should have learnt by now that if your policy isn't strong enough to offend some people, it's not strong enough to win anyone over either.
This could be an election-turning moment for the Tories, and Labour have only themselves to blame.
The amount the UK pays to subsidize the low paid is very high. I;ve seen graphs that show that some minimum wage workers earn as much as people on much higher salaries, when working welfare is taken into account.
Osborne's only option is to make companies paying the minimum wage (some of which pay very little UK corporate taxation anyway) take a little more of the strain.
Given he's slashing corporate taxation, that is OK, so long as it doesn't go too far, I would have thought.
I think you have it spot on Mr Taffys. Too many companies have been running their businesses on the basis of taxpayer subsidies for too long.
Osborne is a tantric Chancellor. Ripeness is all.
And it is his timing of his announcement on the minimum wage which provides deep and lasting pleasure.
And not just the tactical pleasure of watching Ed Miliband's face frozen by the frustration of coitus interruptus.
The pleasure is also strategic:
1. Increasing the minimum wage transfers some of the burden of supporting the low paid from the general taxpayer to the specific employer, The government reduces the cost of providing working tax credits, partially offset by the employer contributing less tax due to reduced profits and employment. This shift in cost burden accelerates the government's strategic objective of rebalancing the economy from state to private sector, and, from universal subsidy to performance related contribution.
2. Increasing the minimum wage coincidentally with an above inflation uprating of personal allowances allows the government to increase work incentives at the same time as limiting loss of income tax revenue at the low end of the earnings scale. A minimum wage of £7.00/hour raises annual pay (for a 40 hour/52 week job) from £13,125 to £14,560. This makes raising the personal allowance up to, say, £12,500 per annum much less costly, even if not entirely neutral fiscally.
3. The timing of the uprating, when employment is increasing and unemployment reducing at its fastest rate since the crash, will allow the inevitable cost on employment to be limited. It should also encourage employers to give higher priority to employment productivity. And, in abating the rate of growth in employment, it should extend the date at which the unemployment rate reaches 7.0%, making a pre-2015 interest rate hike from the BoE less of an electoral risk.
@ Josias - I am not a Labour supporter (though I would happily admit to putting myself on the centre-left) and as anyone who has read PB over the years can testify I am very far from being EdM's greatest fan, but from where I sit he began a debate on the cost of living in this country and has made suggestions which the government has felt the need to respond to. That is a good thing and I am pleased that Ed brought it up because it has led to tangible benefits for the lower paid. I am not going to justify what Ed said or did in government. I did not vote Labour in 2010, largely because I thought that the government he was part of did not deserve to be re-elected.
I really don't think the left can paint this is their win, Ed was talking about voluntary incentives for the "living wage" which is completely different to a mass raising of the minimum wage. I haven't heard a single mention of the minimum wage from Ed or the other Ed for a long time. It fell off Labour's agenda for some reason while the concentrated a fringe issue like the living wage.
While I think you're right about the focus, I think the average voter thinks of the minimum wage (and low pay generally) as a Labour issue, other than the £10k income tax threshold. Also, how much did people distinguish between EdM calling for the living wage to be broadened and Osborne saying the minimum wage will be raised?
Having said which, laws are better than promises. That the Coalition actually did this must count for something.
I really don't think the left can paint this is their win, Ed was talking about voluntary incentives for the "living wage" which is completely different to a mass raising of the minimum wage. I haven't heard a single mention of the minimum wage from Ed or the other Ed for a long time. It fell off Labour's agenda for some reason while the concentrated a fringe issue like the living wage.
Yeah, that would have been much more credible if Labour hadnt devoted their opposition day debate to raising the minimum wage. Yesterday. Nice try though.
After the Times were briefed of the plan last weekend. Damage control.
The Coalition's policy may well be more effective and more sensible. But we only got it because EdM raised the issue. Today's announcement from Osborne is also directly connected to the cost of living debate that Miliband started. I am not particularly interested in who introduces policies that benefit the lowest paid, I am much more interested in them being put into practice. If it is the Tories doing it because they feel that EdM has struck a chord that is fine by me. Obviously, looking at the politics of it - the Tories will hope to persuade voters that they are genuinely exercised by the fate of those on the minimum wage. We will see if they are successful in that.
SO
I disagree that Osborne's move is caused by EdM's intervention. It was definitely influenced in timing by a desire to frustrate EdM's big speech on the economy but this is just co-incidental tactics.
The real driver behind Osborne's move on uprating the minimum wage is to recover the costs of headline coalition commitments, in particular the Lib Dem's flagship policy of uprating the personal allowance.
It is also driven by the strategic objectives of 'shrinking the state', 'rebalancing the economy', 'being competitive and productive' and 'making work pay' as I set out in my previous post.
And to add yet another wave to the Osborne induced tantric orgasm, uprating the minimum wage in 2014 by an above inflation increment will also provide a consumption stimulus to growth in the run-up to the election.
Osborne may enjoy winning tactical battles against the two Eds but he never wanders too far away from his core strategy for economic recovery.
@ Josias - I am not a Labour supporter (though I would happily admit to putting myself on the centre-left) and as anyone who has read PB over the years can testify I am very far from being EdM's greatest fan, but from where I sit he began a debate on the cost of living in this country and has made suggestions which the government has felt the need to respond to. That is a good thing and I am pleased that Ed brought it up because it has led to tangible benefits for the lower paid. I am not going to justify what Ed said or did in government. I did not vote Labour in 2010, largely because I thought that the government he was part of did not deserve to be re-elected.
But you never hear any mention from Labour - or their supporters - of the two million low paid raised out of income tax. It's as if that has no impact on the ill-named 'cost of living crisis'. That move had very tangible benefits for the lower paid. It's like it never happened - there are tumbleweeds blowing through Labour's argument.
As I said in my previous post, you're taking something Ed said vaguely in the same area, and saying it's a victory for him because the coalition are proposing something in vaguely the same area.
It's a nonsense argument. I'm waiting for Ed to talk about the cost of sewerage, and his supporters claiming a victory when Cameron goes to the toilet.
It shows how sociopathic the political class are that they can pass all these laws about sexual harassment and all the rest but they don't think any of it applies to them.
@ Josias - I am not a Labour supporter (though I would happily admit to putting myself on the centre-left) and as anyone who has read PB over the years can testify I am very far from being EdM's greatest fan, but from where I sit he began a debate on the cost of living in this country and has made suggestions which the government has felt the need to respond to. That is a good thing and I am pleased that Ed brought it up because it has led to tangible benefits for the lower paid. I am not going to justify what Ed said or did in government. I did not vote Labour in 2010, largely because I thought that the government he was part of did not deserve to be re-elected.
SO, you are ignoring all of the evidence from the last few weeks that the announcement was coming, and the work of policy exchange from a few months ago. EdM has been fannying about with the living wage and took his eye off the ball and let the government seize the initiative on the minimum wage. Whatever they used their opposition day for yesterday is irrelevant, this has been in the making for much longer than that, and to act as if Osborne announced it on a whim as a response to whatever Labour were saying is wishful thinking at best.
@ Josias - I am not a Labour supporter (though I would happily admit to putting myself on the centre-left) and as anyone who has read PB over the years can testify I am very far from being EdM's greatest fan, but from where I sit he began a debate on the cost of living in this country and has made suggestions which the government has felt the need to respond to. That is a good thing and I am pleased that Ed brought it up because it has led to tangible benefits for the lower paid. I am not going to justify what Ed said or did in government. I did not vote Labour in 2010, largely because I thought that the government he was part of did not deserve to be re-elected.
SO, you are ignoring all of the evidence from the last few weeks that the announcement was coming, and the work of policy exchange from a few months ago. EdM has been fannying about with the living wage and took his eye off the ball and let the government seize the initiative on the minimum wage. Whatever they used their opposition day for yesterday is irrelevant, this has been in the making for much longer than that, and to act as if Osborne announced it on a whim as a response to whatever Labour were saying is wishful thinking at best.
It was being touted as a possible manifesto promise back in the summer; now it is a policy. Something happened in the meantime, I can't think what it was. Labour may well have been tactically defeated here. So what? Politically, my suspicion is that this will not do much to change perceptions of the Tories or Osborne. But I could be wrong. We will see.
Labour have had the minimum wage in manifesto's since the 80s haven't they? While Tories opposed its introduction in 1998.
I suppose in 15-20 years time we could have a UKIP govt taking us back into the EU & fining churches for not conducting gay marriage ceremonies
isam
Once working tax credits were introduced by Labour, incomes ceased to be determined by the free market and the minimum wage just became yet another channel for government intervention in the labour market.
On a purist basis I would still today oppose price setting in the labour market (which is what the minimum wage is), but such opposition would only be logical if working tax credits were also abolished.
There is no intellectual inconsistency between a Tory opposing a minimum wage in the conditions of the 1980s and to support it in the 21st century.
@ Josias - I am not a Labour supporter (though I would happily admit to putting myself on the centre-left) and as anyone who has read PB over the years can testify I am very far from being EdM's greatest fan, but from where I sit he began a debate on the cost of living in this country and has made suggestions which the government has felt the need to respond to. That is a good thing and I am pleased that Ed brought it up because it has led to tangible benefits for the lower paid. I am not going to justify what Ed said or did in government. I did not vote Labour in 2010, largely because I thought that the government he was part of did not deserve to be re-elected.
But you never hear any mention from Labour - or their supporters - of the two million low paid raised out of income tax. It's as if that has no impact on the ill-named 'cost of living crisis'. That move had very tangible benefits for the lower paid. It's like it never happened - there are tumbleweeds blowing through Labour's argument.
As I said in my previous post, you're taking something Ed said vaguely in the same area, and saying it's a victory for him because the coalition are proposing something in vaguely the same area.
It's a nonsense argument. I'm waiting for Ed to talk about the cost of sewerage, and his supporters claiming a victory when Cameron goes to the toilet.
I am not saying it is a victory for Ed. I am saying it is good that it has happened. But that it only happened because Ed made living standards and the cost of living a hot political potato. If you don't buy that and believe that the Tories were always going to announce their support for an above inflation increase in the minimum wage the day before EdM's big speech on the economy so be it. We will have to agree to disagree.
@ Josias - I am not a Labour supporter (though I would happily admit to putting myself on the centre-left) and as anyone who has read PB over the years can testify I am very far from being EdM's greatest fan, but from where I sit he began a debate on the cost of living in this country and has made suggestions which the government has felt the need to respond to. That is a good thing and I am pleased that Ed brought it up because it has led to tangible benefits for the lower paid. I am not going to justify what Ed said or did in government. I did not vote Labour in 2010, largely because I thought that the government he was part of did not deserve to be re-elected.
SO, you are ignoring all of the evidence from the last few weeks that the announcement was coming, and the work of policy exchange from a few months ago. EdM has been fannying about with the living wage and took his eye off the ball and let the government seize the initiative on the minimum wage. Whatever they used their opposition day for yesterday is irrelevant, this has been in the making for much longer than that, and to act as if Osborne announced it on a whim as a response to whatever Labour were saying is wishful thinking at best.
It was being touted as a possible manifesto promise back in the summer; now it is a policy. Something happened in the meantime, I can't think what it was. Labour may well have been tactically defeated here. So what? Politically, my suspicion is that this will not do much to change perceptions of the Tories or Osborne. But I could be wrong. We will see.
Just a slight acceleration to the paint peeling off Labour. As Hopi Sen so articulately described in his recent post on the fall in Labour's polling figures over 2013.
For some reason he's changed his mind into nicking a Labour policy. How is that supposed to make Labour squirm? Do the left really mind if it's Labour or Tories or Lib Dems doing it, it's a win for a left wing policy."
@ Josias - I am not a Labour supporter (though I would happily admit to putting myself on the centre-left) and as anyone who has read PB over the years can testify I am very far from being EdM's greatest fan, but from where I sit he began a debate on the cost of living in this country and has made suggestions which the government has felt the need to respond to. That is a good thing and I am pleased that Ed brought it up because it has led to tangible benefits for the lower paid. I am not going to justify what Ed said or did in government. I did not vote Labour in 2010, largely because I thought that the government he was part of did not deserve to be re-elected.
SO, you are ignoring all of the evidence from the last few weeks that the announcement was coming, and the work of policy exchange from a few months ago. EdM has been fannying about with the living wage and took his eye off the ball and let the government seize the initiative on the minimum wage. Whatever they used their opposition day for yesterday is irrelevant, this has been in the making for much longer than that, and to act as if Osborne announced it on a whim as a response to whatever Labour were saying is wishful thinking at best.
It was being touted as a possible manifesto promise back in the summer; now it is a policy. Something happened in the meantime, I can't think what it was. Labour may well have been tactically defeated here. So what? Politically, my suspicion is that this will not do much to change perceptions of the Tories or Osborne. But I could be wrong. We will see.
Just a slight acceleration to the paint peeling off Labour. As Hopi Sen so articulately described in his recent post on the fall in Labour's polling figures over 2013.
Perhaps. As I have been saying on here for a while, the Tories really should win the GE in 2015 comfortably. If they don't they'll only have themselves to blame.
Labour have had the minimum wage in manifesto's since the 80s haven't they? While Tories opposed its introduction in 1998.
I suppose in 15-20 years time we could have a UKIP govt taking us back into the EU & fining churches for not conducting gay marriage ceremonies
isam
Once working tax credits were introduced by Labour, incomes ceased to be determined by the free market and the minimum wage just became yet another channel for government intervention in the labour market.
On a purist basis I would still today oppose price setting in the labour market (which is what the minimum wage is), but such opposition would only be logical if working tax credits were also abolished.
There is no intellectual inconsistency between a Tory opposing a minimum wage in the conditions of the 1980s and to support it in the 21st century.
Nice to see they are continuing to dance to Ed's tune.
More White Flag than Red Rag. Pity EdM's speech-writers who'll be in for a sleepless night of panicked labour.
I fully congratulate Gideon on his six day about face and think it is a cracking idea. I hope there are more left wing policies in his tank. Red George, long may it last.
The adverse effect on employers could usefully be mitigated by a decrease in Employers NI, particularly for the young.
One of the concerns that I have over the minimum wage is that the labour of unemployed NEETS is often worth less than the minimum wage, so that employers find they get better value from east european migrants. These though tend to be older, so an Employers NI cut for the youngsters would keep the NEETS competitive in the labour market. Once established they could then compete on a more level playing field.
I think you have it spot on Mr Taffys. Too many companies have been running their businesses on the basis of taxpayer subsidies for too long.
Osborne is a tantric Chancellor. Ripeness is all.
And it is his timing of his announcement on the minimum wage which provides deep and lasting pleasure.
And not just the tactical pleasure of watching Ed Miliband's face frozen by the frustration of coitus interruptus.
The pleasure is also strategic:
1. Increasing the minimum wage transfers some of the burden of supporting the low paid from the general taxpayer to the specific employer, The government reduces the cost of providing working tax credits, partially offset by the employer contributing less tax due to reduced profits and employment. This shift in cost burden accelerates the government's strategic objective of rebalancing the economy from state to private sector, and, from universal subsidy to performance related contribution.
2. Increasing the minimum wage coincidentally with an above inflation uprating of personal allowances allows the government to increase work incentives at the same time as limiting loss of income tax revenue at the low end of the earnings scale. A minimum wage of £7.00/hour raises annual pay (for a 40 hour/52 week job) from £13,125 to £14,560. This makes raising the personal allowance up to, say, £12,500 per annum much less costly, even if not entirely neutral fiscally.
3. The timing of the uprating, when employment is increasing and unemployment reducing at its fastest rate since the crash, will allow the inevitable cost on employment to be limited. It should also encourage employers to give higher priority to employment productivity. And, in abating the rate of growth in employment, it should extend the date at which the unemployment rate reaches 7.0%, making a pre-2015 interest rate hike from the BoE less of an electoral risk.
Nice to see they are continuing to dance to Ed's tune.
More White Flag than Red Rag. Pity EdM's speech-writers who'll be in for a sleepless night of panicked labour.
I fully congratulate Gideon on his six day about face and think it is a cracking idea. I hope there are more left wing policies in his tank. Red George, long may it last.
I look forward to Red Ed endorsing Hollande's savage austerity programme.
These Tory supporters on Conhome need to get with the new direction, the future is red, even for the blues:
"There's nothing wrong with it per se. It's just that Conservatives appear to be chasing a demographic who will never vote for them and, once again, they risk alienating more core voters. Why has there been an about-face on the minimum wage? Tories opposed it when it was introduced. Either they are admitting they were wrong (fair enough, what else were they wrong about?) or the party has moved to the left, which is what I believe."
"Potential real-world applications could include creation of emergency housing after disasters, or even rapid development of housing for settlers colonizing other planets in the future. "
These Tory supporters on Conhome need to get with the new direction, the future is red, even for the blues:
"There's nothing wrong with it per se. It's just that Conservatives appear to be chasing a demographic who will never vote for them and, once again, they risk alienating more core voters. Why has there been an about-face on the minimum wage? Tories opposed it when it was introduced. Either they are admitting they were wrong (fair enough, what else were they wrong about?) or the party has moved to the left, which is what I believe."
The future is most definitely not red, you just need to look at France to realise that.
These Tory supporters on Conhome need to get with the new direction, the future is red, even for the blues:
"There's nothing wrong with it per se. It's just that Conservatives appear to be chasing a demographic who will never vote for them and, once again, they risk alienating more core voters. Why has there been an about-face on the minimum wage? Tories opposed it when it was introduced. Either they are admitting they were wrong (fair enough, what else were they wrong about?) or the party has moved to the left, which is what I believe."
The future is most definitely not red, you just need to look at France to realise that.
I cannot wait to hear Gideons "Soak the rich" speech. What next for Red George? Just as France looks right, the Tory Party in the UK turns left.
Dr. Sox, You mention the NEETS, a very important group for the well being of the nation in the future. I think Gordon Brown had it right back in 1997 when he said that being a NEET should not be an option. Its just a shame he never had the courage to put his words into practice.
The adverse effect on employers could usefully be mitigated by a decrease in Employers NI, particularly for the young.
One of the concerns that I have over the minimum wage is that the labour of unemployed NEETS is often worth less than the minimum wage, so that employers find they get better value from east european migrants. These though tend to be older, so an Employers NI cut for the youngsters would keep the NEETS competitive in the labour market. Once established they could then compete on a more level playing field.
I think you have it spot on Mr Taffys. Too many companies have been running their businesses on the basis of taxpayer subsidies for too long.
...
Oh boy, George, that was wonderful!
An excellent idea, Dr. Sox.
Reducing youth unemployment and increasing employability and productivity through training is not only a moral and economic imperative, it would also go a long way to defusing the A8 immigration problem.
Opening the doors to productive immigration would be much easier to bear as a policy if the general unemployment rate was 5.5% and youth unemployment near matching German levels of below 10%.
These Tory supporters on Conhome need to get with the new direction, the future is red, even for the blues:
"There's nothing wrong with it per se. It's just that Conservatives appear to be chasing a demographic who will never vote for them and, once again, they risk alienating more core voters. Why has there been an about-face on the minimum wage? Tories opposed it when it was introduced. Either they are admitting they were wrong (fair enough, what else were they wrong about?) or the party has moved to the left, which is what I believe."
compouter
George has outflanked, outwitted and outplayed the two Eds.
The adverse effect on employers could usefully be mitigated by a decrease in Employers NI, particularly for the young.
One of the concerns that I have over the minimum wage is that the labour of unemployed NEETS is often worth less than the minimum wage, so that employers find they get better value from east european migrants. These though tend to be older, so an Employers NI cut for the youngsters would keep the NEETS competitive in the labour market. Once established they could then compete on a more level playing field.
I think you have it spot on Mr Taffys. Too many companies have been running their businesses on the basis of taxpayer subsidies for too long.
...
Oh boy, George, that was wonderful!
An excellent idea, Dr. Sox.
Reducing youth unemployment and increasing employability and productivity through training is not only a moral and economic imperative, it would also go a long way to defusing the A8 immigration problem.
Opening the doors to productive immigration would be much easier to bear as a policy if the general unemployment rate was 5.5% and youth unemployment near matching German levels of below 10%.
@ Josias - I am not a Labour supporter (though I would happily admit to putting myself on the centre-left) and as anyone who has read PB over the years can testify I am very far from being EdM's greatest fan, but from where I sit he began a debate on the cost of living in this country and has made suggestions which the government has felt the need to respond to. That is a good thing and I am pleased that Ed brought it up because it has led to tangible benefits for the lower paid. I am not going to justify what Ed said or did in government. I did not vote Labour in 2010, largely because I thought that the government he was part of did not deserve to be re-elected.
But you never hear any mention from Labour - or their supporters - of the two million low paid raised out of income tax. It's as if that has no impact on the ill-named 'cost of living crisis'. That move had very tangible benefits for the lower paid. It's like it never happened - there are tumbleweeds blowing through Labour's argument.
As I said in my previous post, you're taking something Ed said vaguely in the same area, and saying it's a victory for him because the coalition are proposing something in vaguely the same area.
It's a nonsense argument. I'm waiting for Ed to talk about the cost of sewerage, and his supporters claiming a victory when Cameron goes to the toilet.
I am not saying it is a victory for Ed. I am saying it is good that it has happened. But that it only happened because Ed made living standards and the cost of living a hot political potato. If you don't buy that and believe that the Tories were always going to announce their support for an above inflation increase in the minimum wage the day before EdM's big speech on the economy so be it. We will have to agree to disagree.
"But that it only happened because Ed made living standards and the cost of living a hot political potato."
The incoherence in your argument is that virtually everything a chancellor announces could be seen as impacting 'living standards', and therefore Ed can claim victory for anything that positively effects it.
For instance, lifting two million people out of income tax. Oh, hang on ...
These Tory supporters on Conhome need to get with the new direction, the future is red, even for the blues:
"There's nothing wrong with it per se. It's just that Conservatives appear to be chasing a demographic who will never vote for them and, once again, they risk alienating more core voters. Why has there been an about-face on the minimum wage? Tories opposed it when it was introduced. Either they are admitting they were wrong (fair enough, what else were they wrong about?) or the party has moved to the left, which is what I believe."
compouter
George has outflanked, outwitted and outplayed the two Eds.
Where next for these two Labour titans?
Out and out, I suspect.
Economically this is total tosh as one would expect from our clueless Chancellor.
Politically he's using Ed's butt crack to park his bike.
Ozzie has a clear strategy. He is trying to get rid of what he sees as the poverty trap. He is trying to make work clearly and manifestly pay more than being out of work.
Now, you may argue that he is a cruel tory for this, wrongly victimising those on benefits, many of whom ca;t work, and you may have a point.
But Milli would never have done that. He may well have wanted to hike the minimum wage, but he would never have cut or frozen benefits or reformed the system at all.
In truth, labour sees little difference between the low paid and those on benefits, as evidenced by the fact that people on benefits can join Unite, for example.
But Ozzie sees a world of difference. And I bet those on low pay do, too.
These Tory supporters on Conhome need to get with the new direction, the future is red, even for the blues:
"There's nothing wrong with it per se. It's just that Conservatives appear to be chasing a demographic who will never vote for them and, once again, they risk alienating more core voters. Why has there been an about-face on the minimum wage? Tories opposed it when it was introduced. Either they are admitting they were wrong (fair enough, what else were they wrong about?) or the party has moved to the left, which is what I believe."
compouter
George has outflanked, outwitted and outplayed the two Eds.
Where next for these two Labour titans?
Out and out, I suspect.
Avery I do not care if he has done it to outwit the two Ed's or trump Milibands speech. He is introducing a left wing policy and I am very happy. The fact he attacked the very policy he has just announced only six days ago is a bonus. As I posted earlier. Every one is a winner. I hope he continues to trump both Ed's with even more left wing policies.
Sorry for not reading the entire thread but have I missed something? Everyone praising George for raising the min wage, or being about to - but it's not in his jurisdiction, it's the job of the low pay commission who should be politically neutral and determine it on facts on the ground not a chancellor's wish...
These Tory supporters on Conhome need to get with the new direction, the future is red, even for the blues:
"There's nothing wrong with it per se. It's just that Conservatives appear to be chasing a demographic who will never vote for them and, once again, they risk alienating more core voters. Why has there been an about-face on the minimum wage? Tories opposed it when it was introduced. Either they are admitting they were wrong (fair enough, what else were they wrong about?) or the party has moved to the left, which is what I believe."
compouter
George has outflanked, outwitted and outplayed the two Eds.
Where next for these two Labour titans?
Out and out, I suspect.
Economically this is total tosh as one would expect from our clueless Chancellor.
Politically he's using Ed's butt crack to park his bike.
Another one trying to spoil the left wing policy love in. Can we all not just bask in Gideons conversion to left wing policies for a few moments more?
@RobD I had seem some articles on printing parts by RR and BAe engineers. It is a fascinating technology, and I hope that it does allow more UK firms to innovate.
Some concerns are using it for rapid prototyping and mock up work, which may help reduce development times. I would love to be a part of it.
Comments
I would suggest if it was a direct reaction to Ed M's 'announcement', then it would have occurred much earlier. Besides, the two are obviously very different things.
And you still cannot answer why Ed M - who in 2009 said energy prices rises were inevitable - now says they are too high. He thought everything was fine whilst he was at DECC, and did nothing to decrease prices, instead concentrating on increasing them.
By your thinking, Ed M can float anything, and a coalition policy in roughly the same area would somehow be a Labour victory, even if the proposed policy was very different. Only an idiot could claim that the coalition have 'stolen' Ed M's energy policy.
It's intellectual nonsense by Labour supporters.
This could be an election-turning moment for the Tories, and Labour have only themselves to blame.
And it is his timing of his announcement on the minimum wage which provides deep and lasting pleasure.
And not just the tactical pleasure of watching Ed Miliband's face frozen by the frustration of coitus interruptus.
The pleasure is also strategic:
1. Increasing the minimum wage transfers some of the burden of supporting the low paid from the general taxpayer to the specific employer, The government reduces the cost of providing working tax credits, partially offset by the employer contributing less tax due to reduced profits and employment. This shift in cost burden accelerates the government's strategic objective of rebalancing the economy from state to private sector, and, from universal subsidy to performance related contribution.
2. Increasing the minimum wage coincidentally with an above inflation uprating of personal allowances allows the government to increase work incentives at the same time as limiting loss of income tax revenue at the low end of the earnings scale. A minimum wage of £7.00/hour raises annual pay (for a 40 hour/52 week job) from £13,125 to £14,560. This makes raising the personal allowance up to, say, £12,500 per annum much less costly, even if not entirely neutral fiscally.
3. The timing of the uprating, when employment is increasing and unemployment reducing at its fastest rate since the crash, will allow the inevitable cost on employment to be limited. It should also encourage employers to give higher priority to employment productivity. And, in abating the rate of growth in employment, it should extend the date at which the unemployment rate reaches 7.0%, making a pre-2015 interest rate hike from the BoE less of an electoral risk.
Oh boy, George, that was wonderful!
Having said which, laws are better than promises. That the Coalition actually did this must count for something.
Wasn't that the original problem?
Usually Ed has something he keeps back as a surprise,so would be interested in what he says tomorrow.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/dirty-protest-lorry-dumps-manure-outside-french-national-assembly-84494//album/dirty_protest__huge_pile_of_manure_dumped_in_front_of_french_national_assembly/2190#31159
Must be one of those anti eco tax protests.
No, it hasn't. At best it has led to George Osborne saying something about what he would like to see happen at some point in the future.
The Coalition's policy may well be more effective and more sensible. But we only got it because EdM raised the issue. Today's announcement from Osborne is also directly connected to the cost of living debate that Miliband started. I am not particularly interested in who introduces policies that benefit the lowest paid, I am much more interested in them being put into practice. If it is the Tories doing it because they feel that EdM has struck a chord that is fine by me. Obviously, looking at the politics of it - the Tories will hope to persuade voters that they are genuinely exercised by the fate of those on the minimum wage. We will see if they are successful in that.
SO
I disagree that Osborne's move is caused by EdM's intervention. It was definitely influenced in timing by a desire to frustrate EdM's big speech on the economy but this is just co-incidental tactics.
The real driver behind Osborne's move on uprating the minimum wage is to recover the costs of headline coalition commitments, in particular the Lib Dem's flagship policy of uprating the personal allowance.
It is also driven by the strategic objectives of 'shrinking the state', 'rebalancing the economy', 'being competitive and productive' and 'making work pay' as I set out in my previous post.
And to add yet another wave to the Osborne induced tantric orgasm, uprating the minimum wage in 2014 by an above inflation increment will also provide a consumption stimulus to growth in the run-up to the election.
Osborne may enjoy winning tactical battles against the two Eds but he never wanders too far away from his core strategy for economic recovery.
As I said in my previous post, you're taking something Ed said vaguely in the same area, and saying it's a victory for him because the coalition are proposing something in vaguely the same area.
It's a nonsense argument. I'm waiting for Ed to talk about the cost of sewerage, and his supporters claiming a victory when Cameron goes to the toilet.
While Tories opposed its introduction in 1998.
I suppose in 15-20 years time we could have a UKIP govt taking us back into the EU & fining churches for not conducting gay marriage ceremonies
Nice to see they are continuing to dance to Ed's tune.
Once working tax credits were introduced by Labour, incomes ceased to be determined by the free market and the minimum wage just became yet another channel for government intervention in the labour market.
On a purist basis I would still today oppose price setting in the labour market (which is what the minimum wage is), but such opposition would only be logical if working tax credits were also abolished.
There is no intellectual inconsistency between a Tory opposing a minimum wage in the conditions of the 1980s and to support it in the 21st century.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-25769900
"As recently as a few days ago Osborne was against it. - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25666442
For some reason he's changed his mind into nicking a Labour policy. How is that supposed to make Labour squirm? Do the left really mind if it's Labour or Tories or Lib Dems doing it, it's a win for a left wing policy."
Dance George Dance!
One of the concerns that I have over the minimum wage is that the labour of unemployed NEETS is often worth less than the minimum wage, so that employers find they get better value from east european migrants. These though tend to be older, so an Employers NI cut for the youngsters would keep the NEETS competitive in the labour market. Once established they could then compete on a more level playing field.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/04/02/government-looking-at-cutting-minimum-wage
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-25756358
OK George you can come out now.
"There's nothing wrong with it per se.
It's just that Conservatives appear to be chasing a demographic who will never vote for them and, once again, they risk alienating more core voters.
Why has there been an about-face on the minimum wage? Tories opposed it when it was introduced. Either they are admitting they were wrong (fair enough, what else were they wrong about?) or the party has moved to the left, which is what I believe."
"Potential real-world applications could include creation of emergency housing after disasters, or even rapid development of housing for settlers colonizing other planets in the future. "
You mention the NEETS, a very important group for the well being of the nation in the future. I think Gordon Brown had it right back in 1997 when he said that being a NEET should not be an option. Its just a shame he never had the courage to put his words into practice.
Reducing youth unemployment and increasing employability and productivity through training is not only a moral and economic imperative, it would also go a long way to defusing the A8 immigration problem.
Opening the doors to productive immigration would be much easier to bear as a policy if the general unemployment rate was 5.5% and youth unemployment near matching German levels of below 10%.
George has outflanked, outwitted and outplayed the two Eds.
Where next for these two Labour titans?
Out and out, I suspect.
:-)
The incoherence in your argument is that virtually everything a chancellor announces could be seen as impacting 'living standards', and therefore Ed can claim victory for anything that positively effects it.
For instance, lifting two million people out of income tax. Oh, hang on ...
•Hillary Clinton (D) 50% {48%} [47%] (46%)
•Chris Christie (R) 37% {45%} [41%] (43%)
Politically he's using Ed's butt crack to park his bike.
•Chris Christie 16% [18%] (15%)
•Paul Ryan 12% [11%] (13%)
•Rand Paul 9% [12%] (9%)
•Jeb Bush 8% [10%] (10%)
•Marco Rubio 7% [7%] (12%)
•Rick Perry 6% [3%] (4%)
•Rick Santorum 5% [4%] (2%)
•Ted Cruz 5% [10%] (7%)
•Scott Walker 4% [4%] (2%)
•Bobby Jindal 3% (1%)
•Undecided 25% [13%] (25%)
Ed Miliband said so last week...
Ozzie has a clear strategy. He is trying to get rid of what he sees as the poverty trap. He is trying to make work clearly and manifestly pay more than being out of work.
Now, you may argue that he is a cruel tory for this, wrongly victimising those on benefits, many of whom ca;t work, and you may have a point.
But Milli would never have done that. He may well have wanted to hike the minimum wage, but he would never have cut or frozen benefits or reformed the system at all.
In truth, labour sees little difference between the low paid and those on benefits, as evidenced by the fact that people on benefits can join Unite, for example.
But Ozzie sees a world of difference. And I bet those on low pay do, too.
•Chris Christie 28% (19%) {14%} [21%] (24%)
•Jeb Bush 14% (14%) {7%} [11%] (15%)
•Rand Paul 14% (20%) {28%} [4%] (10%)
•Ted Cruz 10% (10%)
•Paul Ryan 9% (7%) {7%} [10%] (8%)
•Marco Rubio 8% (7%) {25%} [14%] (12%)
•Scott Walker 4% (3%)
•Bobby Jindal 4% (3%) {1%}
•Someone else/Not sure 10% (6%) {11%} [10%] (2%)
Some concerns are using it for rapid prototyping and mock up work, which may help reduce development times. I would love to be a part of it.