Even Rawnsley admits that the changes are all justified.
Labour need to be careful here: it's more obvious than they seem to realise that removing a bias is not introducing a bias.
What's he's arguing is that all the changes, whether individually arguable or not, add up to a systematic strategy .
That a number of individually justifiable measures need to be taken just suggests that the previous government was quite happy to manipulate the system for their own advantage and that these need to be reversed.
Complaining about the cut in Short money in particular is not likely to meet with much favour from taxpayers who have had to deal with plenty of cuts themselves.
I haven't paid much attention to what Cameron is negotiating bar the welfare limits, but IIRC isn't he also trying for some associate membership where *ever closer union* is explicitly excluded for us/others who don't want federalism?
Now whether that could be trusted is another matter, since a future PM could just hand it away like Mrs T handbag. However I can see the less cynical being swayed by that sort of thing.
For me the decision is easy, I simply do not agree with the core aims of the EU which is ever closer union and the creation of a Federal State into which UK would be assimilated.
(should appeal to the Star Trek fans me thinks)
" associate membership where *ever closer union* is explicitly excluded for us/others who don't want federalism?"
A problem with that is one of definition. What is 'ever closer union'? What is 'federalism' ? It would also be possible for items we want to be wrapped up with other powers we do not, making it an associate membership in name only.
If there is going to be 'associate membership' then its exact meaning and bounds need to be defined and agreed, ideally before the vote. And that isn't going to happen.
If the UK leaves the EU, it will not be the UK's 'fault'. It'll be the EU's for ignoring that many citizens in some countries are not exactly content with them. They've driven onwards in the direction of a superstate, leaving many citizens behind.
Fox accusing the PM of going round Europe with a political begging bowl.
That's a powerful message and one that will unsettle Tory inners because they know it's accurate. He's negotiating about migrant benefits but that's irrelevant, the fact is he has to negotiate how he spends UK taxpayers money.
Tories that continually laud Osborne for reducing the state might be at odds with that.
'I simply do not agree with the core aims of the EU which is ever closer union and the creation of a Federal State into which UK would be assimilated'
Ultimately that is what it is all about.
And concerning 'associate membership' PBers should be aware this suggested status has been put forward by European federalists.
It does not represent a dilution of current membership terms or even the 'status quo'. It is merely intended as a slow lane to the same ultimate federal destination - towards which the Eurozone core will be moving at a faster pace.
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"
Then Finkelstein is a fool.
Why? It is the most important issue to many people, one that they see the effects of in their daily lives. The more high minded approach may appeal to politicos who like to use a thousand words to say what could be said in ten, but their vote is only worth the same as the millions of people who want something done about immigration and its effect on their life
Reading on here it seems that David Cameron is in a very tight corner. He appealed to the EU to help him out, and they seem to be giving him precisely nothing.
Reading on here it seems that David Cameron is in a very tight corner. He appealed to the EU to help him out, and they seem to be giving him precisely nothing.
They were never going to jump through too many hoops for him - there's not a huge benefit to keeping a member that doesn't want to stay - but I'd be a bit skeptical of what's currently getting leaked. There's brinksmanship on the one hand and expectation-lowering on the other.
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"
Then Finkelstein is a fool.
Why? It is the most important issue to many people, one that they see the effects of in their daily lives. The more high minded approach may appeal to politicos who like to use a thousand words to say what could be said in ten, but their vote is only worth the same as the millions of people who want something done about immigration and its effect on their life
I agree that immigration is a concern for a great many people, but is not the only important issue the UK faces and is not necessarily the concern of the undecideds who will ultimately decide the outcome of the referendum. – Strikes me as daft for the Leave camp to have only one string to its bow.
I'm quite impressed that people have found something to complain about in higher pay.
Well quite, why not raise the living wage to £20 ph, what could possibly go wrong?
At a time when we have record employment, we can afford to step out a bit with our minimum wage. To listen to kippers you wouldn't imagine that unemployment is tumbling, labour market participation is at record levels and that the numbers of claimants per vacancy is dropping like a stone. It's a good time to move towards making the minimum wage more like a living wage.
I'm constantly amazed how kippers sound so angry about everything. You can picture them reading the phone book with barely suppressed fury.
Even Rawnsley admits that the changes are all justified.
Labour need to be careful here: it's more obvious than they seem to realise that removing a bias is not introducing a bias.
Rawnsley isn't AFAIK a Labour supporter and he's not making a Labour case. What's he's arguing is that all the changes, whether individually arguable or not, add up to a systematic strategy that people concerned with having a functioning opposition in the future should have doubts about.
We absolutely need a functioning Opposition but it's not the Government's job to provide it. Of course the Government should not do anything genuinely anti-democratic - real gerrymandering, for example - and if it does that should be vigorously opposed by everyone. I don't think that applies here.
Funnily enough I'm reminded of a piece Dan Hodges wrote a few weeks ago in which he effectively begged the Conservatives to have mercy on Labour, talking about the Labour Party's place in our history and how the Tories should not utterly destroy it. But - "You must think this, look you, that the worm will do his kind."
In other words, one can't appeal to the Tories to ensure effective opposition to the Tories. It's the centre-left's task to get it's act together and become a credible alternative government - the only really effective opposition. Nothing the Conservatives are doing would prevent a competent-looking centre-left party from winning power. Heck, the Conservatives might even come to regret that the Lords could no longer vote down SIs.
I'm interested to hear from pb Tories about the introduction of the living wage, bearing in mind you continually trumpet how this govt is pulling back the state.
''There's brinksmanship on the one hand and expectation-lowering on the other.''
It would be easier to manage expectations if we were not a big net contributor. The voters know, however, that we are paying. And they don;t see why, when you are paying, you don;t get to choose the Europe you want.
Did anyone watch the Democratic debate last night? From the limited reports that I've seen, it sounds as though Hillary was in cruise mode and fireworks were limited.
No, but she is effectively on cruise control to the nomination isn't she?
Even Rawnsley admits that the changes are all justified.
Labour need to be careful here: it's more obvious than they seem to realise that removing a bias is not introducing a bias.
Rawnsley isn't AFAIK a Labour supporter and he's not making a Labour case. What's he's arguing is that all the changes, whether individually arguable or not, add up to a systematic strategy that people concerned with having a functioning opposition in the future should have doubts about.
We absolutely need a functioning Opposition but it's not the Government's job to provide it. Of course the Government should not do anything genuinely anti-democratic - real gerrymandering, for example - and if it does that should be vigorously opposed by everyone. I don't think that applies here.
Funnily enough I'm reminded of a piece Dan Hodges wrote a few weeks ago in which he effectively begged the Conservatives to have mercy on Labour, talking about the Labour Party's place in our history and how the Tories should not utterly destroy it. But - "You must think this, look you, that the worm will do his kind."
In other words, one can't appeal to the Tories to ensure effective opposition to the Tories. It's the centre-left's task to get it's act together and become a credible alternative government - the only really effective opposition. Nothing the Conservatives are doing would prevent a competent-looking centre-left party from winning power. Heck, the Conservatives might even come to regret that the Lords could no longer vote down SIs.
I'm quite impressed that people have found something to complain about in higher pay.
Well quite, why not raise the living wage to £20 ph, what could possibly go wrong?
At a time when we have record employment, we can afford to step out a bit with our minimum wage. To listen to kippers you wouldn't imagine that unemployment is tumbling, labour market participation is at record levels and that the numbers of claimants per vacancy is dropping like a stone. It's a good time to move towards making the minimum wage more like a living wage.
I'm constantly amazed how kippers sound so angry about everything. You can picture them reading the phone book with barely suppressed fury.
I'm not angry about anything.
I'd like an economist on here to explain this please:
The living wage will mean that those now on the min wage will get a pay rise of around 20%, if that's inaccurate I stand to be corrected but actually the % figure is irrelevant.
Will those currently on the living wage also get a 20% rise? Or are we now aiming for a situation where everybody gets paid the same, so that a cleaner will now get paid the same as their supervisor?
It's a serious question that so far I haven't found the answer to.
Brexit lovers seem to assume an EU carries on. But what if a precedent is set? Frexit, Dexit is not in our national interest. We don't want a fragmented basket case on our doorstep.
Would we be happy with an independent Germany or France pursuing their strict national interest without reference to us or anyone else?
Yes. Competition is a good thing and France should be pursuing her own interests etc.
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"
Then Finkelstein is a fool.
Why? It is the most important issue to many people, one that they see the effects of in their daily lives. The more high minded approach may appeal to politicos who like to use a thousand words to say what could be said in ten, but their vote is only worth the same as the millions of people who want something done about immigration and its effect on their life
I agree that immigration is a concern for a great many people, but is not the only important issue the UK faces and is not necessarily the concern of the undecideds who will ultimately decide the outcome of the referendum. – Strikes me as daft for the Leave camp to have only one string to its bow.
Its the most relevant issue and the easiest to make a point with to many people who aren't interested in politics. The technical arguments for leaving just wont resonate with 99% of people however much they turn on those who like arguing about politics
I'm quite impressed that people have found something to complain about in higher pay.
Well quite, why not raise the living wage to £20 ph, what could possibly go wrong?
At a time when we have record employment, we can afford to step out a bit with our minimum wage. To listen to kippers you wouldn't imagine that unemployment is tumbling, labour market participation is at record levels and that the numbers of claimants per vacancy is dropping like a stone. It's a good time to move towards making the minimum wage more like a living wage.
I'm constantly amazed how kippers sound so angry about everything. You can picture them reading the phone book with barely suppressed fury.
I'm not angry about anything.
I'd like an economist on here to explain this please:
The living wage will mean that those now on the min wage will get a pay rise of around 20%, if that's inaccurate I stand to be corrected but actually the % figure is irrelevant.
Will those currently on the living wage also get a 20% rise? Or are we now aiming for a situation where everybody gets paid the same, so that a cleaner will now get paid the same as their supervisor?
It's a serious question that so far I haven't found the answer to.
I would expect the supervisor to get a pay rise though it may be less than 20%
I mostly agree with that. I think if it was certain that Leave meant EEA on pre-negotiated terms that would change things a lot.
Here's the difficulty:
If it's EU vs EEA, then a lot of business people support Out, but a lot of people for whom immigration is the biggest issue throw their hands up and complain that it's a big stitch up.
If it's EU vs Completely Out, then there will be very little business support, and quite a lot of EEA supporters will reluctantly decide that going with the EU is less of a risk.
Let me tell you about my day job. I am a fund manager at a medium sized firm. We have a lot of European clients - mostly in France and Norway. The EEA single market for services (and financial services) means we can sell to people across the continent under UK regulation, and without having local offices and regulated entities, and capital sitting in local company subsidiaries, etc. When we sell our products to Australians and Canadians, we use local firms to provide that regulatory shield for us. But, of course, they take a third of the revenue. If we left and joined the EEA, it would be business as usual for us. If we left and went completely alone, it would be a very serious issue for our business. We'd either need to invest in opening a regulated Paris office, and put up capital there, or use a firm inside the EU to distribute our product and lose a significant chunk of the revenue. I don't think anyone at my firm would choose Completely Out over EU. But quite a lot would choose EEA over EU.
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"
Then Finkelstein is a fool.
Why? It is the most important issue to many people, one that they see the effects of in their daily lives. The more high minded approach may appeal to politicos who like to use a thousand words to say what could be said in ten, but their vote is only worth the same as the millions of people who want something done about immigration and its effect on their life
I agree that immigration is a concern for a great many people, but is not the only important issue the UK faces and is not necessarily the concern of the undecideds who will ultimately decide the outcome of the referendum. – Strikes me as daft for the Leave camp to have only one string to its bow.
Its the most relevant issue and the easiest to make a point with to many people who aren't interested in politics. The technical arguments for leaving just wont resonate with 99% of people however much they turn on those who like arguing about politics
It's not about motivating the 35% for whom immigration is the biggest issue. Those people will come and vote Out regardless.
I'm quite impressed that people have found something to complain about in higher pay.
Well quite, why not raise the living wage to £20 ph, what could possibly go wrong?
At a time when we have record employment, we can afford to step out a bit with our minimum wage. To listen to kippers you wouldn't imagine that unemployment is tumbling, labour market participation is at record levels and that the numbers of claimants per vacancy is dropping like a stone. It's a good time to move towards making the minimum wage more like a living wage.
I'm constantly amazed how kippers sound so angry about everything. You can picture them reading the phone book with barely suppressed fury.
I'm not angry about anything.
I'd like an economist on here to explain this please:
The living wage will mean that those now on the min wage will get a pay rise of around 20%, if that's inaccurate I stand to be corrected but actually the % figure is irrelevant.
Will those currently on the living wage also get a 20% rise? Or are we now aiming for a situation where everybody gets paid the same, so that a cleaner will now get paid the same as their supervisor?
It's a serious question that so far I haven't found the answer to.
I would expect the supervisor to get a pay rise though it may be less than 20%
Now we're making progress.
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"
Then Finkelstein is a fool.
Why? It is the most important issue to many people, one that they see the effects of in their daily lives. The more high minded approach may appeal to politicos who like to use a thousand words to say what could be said in ten, but their vote is only worth the same as the millions of people who want something done about immigration and its effect on their life
I agree that immigration is a concern for a great many people, but is not the only important issue the UK faces and is not necessarily the concern of the undecideds who will ultimately decide the outcome of the referendum. – Strikes me as daft for the Leave camp to have only one string to its bow.
Its the most relevant issue and the easiest to make a point with to many people who aren't interested in politics. The technical arguments for leaving just wont resonate with 99% of people however much they turn on those who like arguing about politics
It's not about motivating the 35% for whom immigration is the biggest issue. Those people will come and vote Out regardless.
You say that as if the other 65% are pro immigration!
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"
Then Finkelstein is a fool.
Why? It is the most important issue to many people, one that they see the effects of in their daily lives. The more high minded approach may appeal to politicos who like to use a thousand words to say what could be said in ten, but their vote is only worth the same as the millions of people who want something done about immigration and its effect on their life
I agree that immigration is a concern for a great many people, but is not the only important issue the UK faces and is not necessarily the concern of the undecideds who will ultimately decide the outcome of the referendum. – Strikes me as daft for the Leave camp to have only one string to its bow.
Its the most relevant issue and the easiest to make a point with to many people who aren't interested in politics. The technical arguments for leaving just wont resonate with 99% of people however much they turn on those who like arguing about politics
It's not about motivating the 35% for whom immigration is the biggest issue. Those people will come and vote Out regardless.
You say that as if the other 65% are pro immigration!
I'm not saying the other 65% are pro immigration.
But don't forget that half the country barely sees an immigrant. The vast majority of immigration (particularly EU immigration) is into the South East.
BB63..Scargill was the perfect gent... but mad as the proverbial
Yes that makes sense, so many union men are like that, really decent until they come across what they perceive as the enemy. I suspect you'd put Corbyn and his mates in that category.
"I think Nigel Farage is right, the way to fight membership of the European Union is on immigration"
Then Finkelstein is a fool.
Why? It is the most important issue to many people, one that they see the effects of in their daily lives. The more high minded approach may appeal to politicos who like to use a thousand words to say what could be said in ten, but their vote is only worth the same as the millions of people who want something done about immigration and its effect on their life
I agree that immigration is a concern for a great many people, but is not the only important issue the UK faces and is not necessarily the concern of the undecideds who will ultimately decide the outcome of the referendum. – Strikes me as daft for the Leave camp to have only one string to its bow.
Its the most relevant issue and the easiest to make a point with to many people who aren't interested in politics. The technical arguments for leaving just wont resonate with 99% of people however much they turn on those who like arguing about politics
It's not about motivating the 35% for whom immigration is the biggest issue. Those people will come and vote Out regardless.
You say that as if the other 65% are pro immigration!
I'm not saying the other 65% are pro immigration.
But don't forget that half the country barely sees an immigrant. The vast majority of immigration (particularly EU immigration) is into the South East.
Well its not up to me obviously, but I just don't see that people are that bothered, en masse, about the other effects of being an EU member
That said it is probably non EU immigration that bothers people more, although in 10 years or so when the migrants are EU citizens it will be more of a concern
The point of the minimum wage is to move the burden from the Government (the taxpayer..you and me) to the employer..the more the worker gets then there will be less paid out in benefits..
I'm quite impressed that people have found something to complain about in higher pay.
Well quite, why not raise the living wage to £20 ph, what could possibly go wrong?
At a time when we have record employment, we can afford to step out a bit with our minimum wage. To listen to kippers you wouldn't imagine that unemployment is tumbling, labour market participation is at record levels and that the numbers of claimants per vacancy is dropping like a stone. It's a good time to move towards making the minimum wage more like a living wage.
I'm constantly amazed how kippers sound so angry about everything. You can picture them reading the phone book with barely suppressed fury.
I'm not angry about anything.
I'd like an economist on here to explain this please:
The living wage will mean that those now on the min wage will get a pay rise of around 20%, if that's inaccurate I stand to be corrected but actually the % figure is irrelevant.
Will those currently on the living wage also get a 20% rise? Or are we now aiming for a situation where everybody gets paid the same, so that a cleaner will now get paid the same as their supervisor?
It's a serious question that so far I haven't found the answer to.
I would expect the supervisor to get a pay rise though it may be less than 20%
Now we're making progress.
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
What an utterly bizarre attitude. Such hostility to people getting more money at a time when the labour market is buoyant and when employers could do with a nudge to make their employees more productive is baffling.
On the birthday front. I'm sandwiched between Plato and Flightpath.
December birthdays are awkward. Mine was less than a week ago, I have a brother's tomorrow, another on Wednesday, and 2 other relatives within a week after that. Expensive.
The point of the minimum wage is to move the burden from the Government to the employer..the more the worker gets then there will be less paid out in benefits..
With respect Mr Dodd that doesn't address my questions below.
The living wage and the Tories reminds me of Basil Fawlty.
Don't mention the war, I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it.
I'll bring up the question periodically, there's a few clued up (sic) Tories on here that will be able to explain all.
more obvious than they seem to realise that removing a bias is not introducing a bias.
That is true. I'm not sure on all the changes going on, and certainly the motivation behind some like the Union one I am sure is entirely partisan, but that in itself doesn't make proposed changes unreasonable, though of course they could be.
That said, if the totality of the reasonable changes is such that the Tories gain a clear advantage as a result, perception might be that they are as a package unfair somehow.
The HOL proposals do seem entirely motivated by partisan advantage given the lack of intention to do anything about it until it caused trouble, which makes the changes suspect - at least the Union stuff and the reduction in seats numbers and so on were trailed for a long time and considered.
Until that time, nobody even considered that the Lords would block a finance manifesto measure...
For what it's worth (that is, not much), I don't know anyone on or around the minimum wage who seems pleased about the government move. Is it a poisoned chalice, or do they not appreciate the change is coming?
I'm quite impressed that people have found something to complain about in higher pay.
Well quite, why not raise the living wage to £20 ph, what could possibly go wrong?
At a time when we have record employment, we can afford to step out a bit with our minimum wage. To listen to kippers you wouldn't imagine that unemployment is tumbling, labour market participation is at record levels and that the numbers of claimants per vacancy is dropping like a stone. It's a good time to move towards making the minimum wage more like a living wage.
I'm constantly amazed how kippers sound so angry about everything. You can picture them reading the phone book with barely suppressed fury.
I'm not angry about anything.
I'd like an economist on here to explain this please:
The living wage will mean that those now on the min wage will get a pay rise of around 20%, if that's inaccurate I stand to be corrected but actually the % figure is irrelevant.
Will those currently on the living wage also get a 20% rise? Or are we now aiming for a situation where everybody gets paid the same, so that a cleaner will now get paid the same as their supervisor?
It's a serious question that so far I haven't found the answer to.
I would expect the supervisor to get a pay rise though it may be less than 20%
Now we're making progress.
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
What an utterly bizarre attitude. Such hostility to people getting more money at a time when the labour market is buoyant and when employers could do with a nudge to make their employees more productive is baffling.
Mr Meeks, if it's bizarre perhaps you could help Mr Thompson out and answer my question below. It's easy to laud a popular, vote winning policy without looking in to the ramifications. You can call me angry, hostile or bizarre but you still won't address my perfectly reasonable questions.
Admitting that I even think about the EU clearly puts me in a relatively small minority and therefore makes me atypical but the range of reasons that I am leaning leave include:
1. The extension of QMV through Lisbon combined with the development of a EZ bloc that has that majority. It seems inevitable that the economic policy of the EU will develop in ways not to our advantage and that we may not be able to stop it. Examples have been the FTT, which basically meant London paying taxes for the whole of the EU, the slow to stop development of the single market in services in which we are strong and the threats of having to have establishments in the EZ to provide financial services there.
It has to be recognised that leaving the EU does not diminish some of those threats, it may well even increase them. It is very unlikely, for example, that any agreement within the EEA or out of it will give our financial services industry the sort of access it has even at the moment. Frankfurt and Paris will undoubtedly seek to recover some of their lost business and tax revenue. But being in a club where our views and interests are so capable of being overridden is not attractive either. If we control access to our own markets we have something valuable to bargain with.
For me, this is what Cameron's renegotiation is all about. The rest is gestures and side issues. If he came back with a deal on this that protected our interests I would be open to persuasion by remain. I think it is increasingly unlikely that he will.
2. Much more trivial but the European Parliament annoys the hell out of me. It has no democratic mandate worth a damn given the level of participation across the EU, it is full of pointless buffoons (not all in UKIP) and seems open to corruption by special interest groups. It is almost never held accountable for its actions and media oversight is non existent. Having 2 bases is just ridiculous. I agree with Cameron that the national Parliaments should have a bigger role.
3. It is obviously absurd that the UK taxpayer pays CB to children living in Poland who have never come to the UK just because their dad has a job here. This really has to stop.
4. I am increasingly concerned about the implications of our idiotic politicians incorporating things like ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms into law. This is giving courts a role far beyond anything I recognise as law. This is alarming enough in our domestic courts but giving these sorts of powers and responsibilities to the CJE is dangerously anti-democratic.
These topics and more make me doubt that remaining in the EU is attractive but sometimes in life you need to choose between a bad option and a worse one. I need to be confident that Leave gives us a better option which means I need to know what that is and how it addresses these concerns. I am confident that at least 0.1% of the population thinks the same way.
ICYMI-@Kevin_Maguire Dec 19 "Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity". Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
ICYMI-@Kevin_Maguire Dec 19 "Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity". Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
Imagine going to the pictures and booing someone in the audience, what a moronic, sheep like society we've become.
ICYMI-@Kevin_Maguire Dec 19 "Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity". Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
His policies (for the most part) are not, but it is right that, fairly or not, Osborne just seems to go down poorly with people. I'm not sure what he could do to try to address his image issues before Cameron goes either. He's already trying expanding his stature, being an actually powerful effective Deputy PM (though not in name). Not sure Corbyn can entirely pick up as a result, but he has more of a chance.
ICYMI-@Kevin_Maguire Dec 19 "Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity". Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
Imagine going to the pictures and booing someone in the audience, what a moronic, sheep like society we've become.
I'm confused, what's sheep like about it? I think it's a bit rude and pointless, but how does it show we're sheep like?
ICYMI-@Kevin_Maguire Dec 19 "Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity". Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
The more Osborne keeps appearing in PR initiatives the worse it gets for him.
ICYMI-@Kevin_Maguire Dec 19 "Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity". Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
Corbyn won't be attractive in comparison to any plausible Tory leader - provided only that the govt doesn't screw up the economy over the next 4 years.
I'm quite impressed that people have found something to complain about in higher pay.
Well quite, why not raise the living wage to £20 ph, what could possibly go wrong?
At a time when we have record employment, we can afford to step out a bit with our minimum wage. To listen to kippers you wouldn't imagine that unemployment is tumbling, labour market participation is at record levels and that the numbers of claimants per vacancy is dropping like a stone. It's a good time to move towards making the minimum wage more like a living wage.
I'm constantly amazed how kippers sound so angry about everything. You can picture them reading the phone book with barely suppressed fury.
I'm not angry about anything.
I'd like an economist on here to explain this please:
The living wage will mean that those now on the min wage will get a pay rise of around 20%, if that's inaccurate I stand to be corrected but actually the % figure is irrelevant.
Will those currently on the living wage also get a 20% rise? Or are we now aiming for a situation where everybody gets paid the same, so that a cleaner will now get paid the same as their supervisor?
It's a serious question that so far I haven't found the answer to.
I would expect the supervisor to get a pay rise though it may be less than 20%
Now we're making progress.
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
What an utterly bizarre attitude. Such hostility to people getting more money at a time when the labour market is buoyant and when employers could do with a nudge to make their employees more productive is baffling.
Mr Meeks, if it's bizarre perhaps you could help Mr Thompson out and answer my question below. It's easy to laud a popular, vote winning policy without looking in to the ramifications. You can call me angry, hostile or bizarre but you still won't address my perfectly reasonable questions.
The answer is that people slightly above minimum wage would also receive increases (that's part of the point). People higher up the scale won't because the differentials are already large.
ICYMI-@Kevin_Maguire Dec 19 "Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity". Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
Corbyn won't be attractive in comparison to any plausible Tory leader - provided only that the govt doesn't screw up the economy over the next 4 years.
Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I question the ability of the government not to screw up the economy sometime in the next 4 years or, rather, that the economy will not get screwed up somehow (perhaps outside their control) in those 4 years, and for which they will take the blame, as governments do (note for Ed M and Ed B, Cameron actually stated on many occasions Labour were not entirely to blame for the economy crashing - though he and others implied they were of course - so the official line was never that a party could on its own take down the world economy, though they could contribute to it and make it worse. Take note for how much to blame the Tories if things go south due to outside events)
That a number of individually justifiable measures need to be taken just suggests that the previous government was quite happy to manipulate the system for their own advantage and that these need to be reversed.
Complaining about the cut in Short money in particular is not likely to meet with much favour from taxpayers who have had to deal with plenty of cuts themselves.
I wouldn't necessarily agree that the individual measures are justifiable, but that's not Rawnsley's point. There are lots of things in the political landscape that are arguably undesirable and could be changed, but if you select only those which damage whoever happens to be in opposition, there an overall undemocratic intent at work.
To take your example, funding of opposition. The Short money was introduced by a Labour government to help the opposition research alternative policies, to compensate for the lack of access to the Civil Service. It has never been seen as controversial, since it's in the national interest that both sides have well-researched policies. It's being reduced at the same time as new restrictions are imposed on another funding stream for the opposition, union donations.
If a genuine attempt was being made to reduce the cost of politics, few would grumble - we could lower the national spending limits and close the loopholes on targeting of marginals. But nothing whatsoever is being done to reduce the flow of money from businesses to the governing party. The intent is clearly partisan.
The way I look at the EU is to ask myself "if we weren't already in it now, would I be joining it today?"
But we are in it and that's the key point. The opportunity cost of the upheaval of either leaving ( or hypothetically joining) is too great. There are more important problems to solve.
The key point is that people are being asked if they want to stay in. If they decide they want out, they aren't going to accept a feeble "but it's Too Difficult to Do..." line. That is just badgering them that there is only one outcome.
If our politicians, diplomats and civil servants can't find a way to implement the will of the people in a Referendum, then they should resign. Or be sacked.
And there are no more important problems to solve than having the fullest range of tools possible to decide how our nation wishes to address the problems it faces.
Of course we could leave. It's just risky, expensive and backward looking. To your point on the fullest range of tools IMO that clearly comes from being in and leveraging our combined economic clout.
Canada have no way near as much economic clout as the EU yet are in the process of signing an FTA on virtually equal terms........
Given Gordon tested to destruction that he hadn't abolished Boon & Bust - I just hope that when the inevitable slow down happens, it's a soft landing because we planned for it.
ICYMI-@Kevin_Maguire Dec 19 "Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity". Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
Corbyn won't be attractive in comparison to any plausible Tory leader - provided only that the govt doesn't screw up the economy over the next 4 years.
Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but I question the ability of the government not to screw up the economy sometime in the next 4 years or, rather, that the economy will not get screwed up somehow (perhaps outside their control) in those 4 years, and for which they will take the blame, as governments do (note for Ed M and Ed B, Cameron actually stated on many occasions Labour were not entirely to blame for the economy crashing - though he and others implied they were of course - so the official line was never that a party could on its own take down the world economy. Take note for how much to blame the Tories if things go south due to outside events)
ICYMI-@Kevin_Maguire Dec 19 "Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity". Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
His policies (for the most part) are not, but it is right that, fairly or not, Osborne just seems to go down poorly with people. I'm not sure what he could do to try to address his image issues before Cameron goes either. He's already trying expanding his stature, being an actually powerful effective Deputy PM (though not in name). Not sure Corbyn can entirely pick up as a result, but he has more of a chance.
ICYMI-@Kevin_Maguire Dec 19 "Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity". Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
Imagine going to the pictures and booing someone in the audience, what a moronic, sheep like society we've become.
I'm confused, what's sheep like about it? I think it's a bit rude and pointless, but how does it show we're sheep like?
I can't imagine that 800 people knew why they were booing him, they just joined in.
BB63...Seems to be the way of it..morons and sheep..It only needed one person to start clapping and confusion would have descended on the booers like a dark biblical cloud..
ICYMI-@Kevin_Maguire Dec 19 "Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity". Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
His policies (for the most part) are not, but it is right that, fairly or not, Osborne just seems to go down poorly with people. I'm not sure what he could do to try to address his image issues before Cameron goes either. He's already trying expanding his stature, being an actually powerful effective Deputy PM (though not in name). Not sure Corbyn can entirely pick up as a result, but he has more of a chance.
ICYMI-@Kevin_Maguire Dec 19 "Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity". Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
Imagine going to the pictures and booing someone in the audience, what a moronic, sheep like society we've become.
I'm confused, what's sheep like about it? I think it's a bit rude and pointless, but how does it show we're sheep like?
I can't imagine that 800 people knew why they were booing him, they just joined in.
Ah, I see. Well, I don't think peer pressure and herd mentality are recent inventions, so I don't p in that on modern society.
I'm quite impressed that people have found something to complain about in higher pay.
Well quite, why not raise the living wage to £20 ph, what could possibly go wrong?
At a time when we have record employment, we can afford to step out a bit with our minimum wage. To listen to kippers you wouldn't imagine that unemployment is tumbling, labour market participation is at record levels and that the numbers of claimants per vacancy is dropping like a stone. It's a good time to move towards making the minimum wage more like a living wage.
I'm constantly amazed how kippers sound so angry about everything. You can picture them reading the phone book with barely suppressed fury.
I'm not angry about anything.
I'd like an economist on here to explain this please:
The living wage will mean that those now on the min wage will get a pay rise of around 20%, if that's inaccurate I stand to be corrected but actually the % figure is irrelevant.
Will those currently on the living wage also get a 20% rise? Or are we now aiming for a situation where everybody gets paid the same, so that a cleaner will now get paid the same as their supervisor?
It's a serious question that so far I haven't found the answer to.
I would expect the supervisor to get a pay rise though it may be less than 20%
Now we're making progress.
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
What an utterly bizarre attitude. Such hostility to people getting more money at a time when the labour market is buoyant and when employers could do with a nudge to make their employees more productive is baffling.
Mr Meeks, if it's bizarre perhaps you could help Mr Thompson out and answer my question below. It's easy to laud a popular, vote winning policy without looking in to the ramifications. You can call me angry, hostile or bizarre but you still won't address my perfectly reasonable questions.
The answer is that people slightly above minimum wage would also receive increases (that's part of the point). People higher up the scale won't because the differentials are already large.
So the millions employed by SMEs will all be getting pay rises imposed by the govt.
I would expect the supervisor to get a pay rise though it may be less than 20%
Now we're making progress.
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
What an utterly bizarre attitude. Such hostility to people getting more money at a time when the labour market is buoyant and when employers could do with a nudge to make their employees more productive is baffling.
Mr Meeks, if it's bizarre perhaps you could help Mr Thompson out and answer my question below. It's easy to laud a popular, vote winning policy without looking in to the ramifications. You can call me angry, hostile or bizarre but you still won't address my perfectly reasonable questions.
It's scarcely a queation. The longstanding policy is to ensure that all employees receive a wage of a given value. That value is to increase sharply but effectively the same policy continues, at a higher level of aspiration. What employers choose to do in response for employees earning more than that value is their business.
Should it increase by further step changes in the future? Why not, as and when the economy is sufficeintly strong to bear those increased aspirations? Should we be aiming for complete equality of wages? That's not on anyone's agenda as far as I know and it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I'm completely at a loss to see just what riles you so much about this.
I would expect the supervisor to get a pay rise though it may be less than 20%
Now we're making progress.
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
What an utterly bizarre attitude. Such hostility to people getting more money at a time when the labour market is buoyant and when employers could do with a nudge to make their employees more productive is baffling.
Mr Meeks, if it's bizarre perhaps you could help Mr Thompson out and answer my question below. It's easy to laud a popular, vote winning policy without looking in to the ramifications. You can call me angry, hostile or bizarre but you still won't address my perfectly reasonable questions.
It's scarcely a queation. The longstanding policy is to ensure that all employees receive a wage of a given value. That value is to increase sharply but effectively the same policy continues, at a higher level of aspiration. What employers choose to do in response for employees earning more than that value is their business.
Should it increase by further step changes in the future? Why not, as and when the economy is sufficeintly strong to bear those increased aspirations? Should we be aiming for complete equality of wages? That's not on anyone's agenda as far as I know and it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I'm completely at a loss to see just what riles you so much about this.
I appreciate you're at a loss but Mr Thompson and other Tories on here know exactly the point I'm making. You don't roll back the state on one hand and enforce pay rises on companies on the other.
Now you're not the only person that thinks a living wage is a good idea, I'm curious why those that opposed a min wage now want to raise it.
Incidentally, I haven't said whether or not I agree with it.
I would expect the supervisor to get a pay rise though it may be less than 20%
Now we're making progress.
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
What an utterly bizarre attitude. Such hostility to people getting more money at a time when the labour market is buoyant and when employers could do with a nudge to make their employees more productive is baffling.
Mr Meeks, if it's bizarre perhaps you could help Mr Thompson out and answer my question below. It's easy to laud a popular, vote winning policy without looking in to the ramifications. You can call me angry, hostile or bizarre but you still won't address my perfectly reasonable questions.
It's scarcely a queation. The longstanding policy is to ensure that all employees receive a wage of a given value. That value is to increase sharply but effectively the same policy continues, at a higher level of aspiration. What employers choose to do in response for employees earning more than that value is their business.
Should it increase by further step changes in the future? Why not, as and when the economy is sufficeintly strong to bear those increased aspirations? Should we be aiming for complete equality of wages? That's not on anyone's agenda as far as I know and it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I'm completely at a loss to see just what riles you so much about this.
'Funnily enough I'm reminded of a piece Dan Hodges wrote a few weeks ago in which he effectively begged the Conservatives to have mercy on Labour, talking about the Labour Party's place in our history and how the Tories should not utterly destroy it'
If I think about Labour's 'place in our history' that makes the idea of the party being utterly destroyed rather attractive...
ICYMI-@Kevin_Maguire Dec 19 "Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity". Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
His policies (for the most part) are not, but it is right that, fairly or not, Osborne just seems to go down poorly with people. I'm not sure what he could do to try to address his image issues before Cameron goes either. He's already trying expanding his stature, being an actually powerful effective Deputy PM (though not in name). Not sure Corbyn can entirely pick up as a result, but he has more of a chance.
ICYMI-@Kevin_Maguire Dec 19 "Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity". Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
Imagine going to the pictures and booing someone in the audience, what a moronic, sheep like society we've become.
I'm confused, what's sheep like about it? I think it's a bit rude and pointless, but how does it show we're sheep like?
I can't imagine that 800 people knew why they were booing him, they just joined in.
Ah, I see. Well, I don't think peer pressure and herd mentality are recent inventions, so I don't p in that on modern society.
Fair point, I don't imagine many of the 800 knew who he was until they started booing.
If a SME can only survive by paying the absolute minimum wage then perhaps it shouldn't be there at all..it means it is existing by impoverishing its workforce.
@blackburn63 is correct that the living wage will affect more people than the current NMW. It means that relatively modest differentials amongst the low skilled become devalued since they get paid the same. This can reduce the incentive to train and get qualifications which can have long term implications for productivity. It also increases the marginal cost of labour which means that the "natural" rate of unemployment will be fractionally higher than it would be in a genuinely free market.
But I am still strongly in favour of it. Once you accept that the State has some sort of duty to provide a safety net which allows people to have a minimum standard of living the question is really who pays for it. WTC puts an unacceptable and unsustainable share of that burden on the tax payer. It should rest on those who want to employ the worker and make a profit from his labour. Increasing the cost of labour also incentivises employers to improve productivity offsetting the negative effect I have described above.
What is the sustainable level of living wage very much depends on the state of the economy and the opportunities available to make profit from labour. When the economy is generating hundreds of thousands of additional jobs a year there is, as Alastair points out, an opportunity to transfer more of the costs of employment to the employer and Osborne was right to take it. The living wage is one of his more important policies in delivering welfare cuts and I think, despite the issues in paragraph 1, Tories should support it wholeheartedly.
If a SME can only survive by paying the absolute minimum wage then perhaps it shouldn't be there at all..it means it is existing by impoverishing its workforce.
That a number of individually justifiable measures need to be taken just suggests that the previous government was quite happy to manipulate the system for their own advantage and that these need to be reversed.
Complaining about the cut in Short money in particular is not likely to meet with much favour from taxpayers who have had to deal with plenty of cuts themselves.
I wouldn't necessarily agree that the individual measures are justifiable, but that's not Rawnsley's point. There are lots of things in the political landscape that are arguably undesirable and could be changed, but if you select only those which damage whoever happens to be in opposition, there an overall undemocratic intent at work.
To take your example, funding of opposition. The Short money was introduced by a Labour government to help the opposition research alternative policies, to compensate for the lack of access to the Civil Service. It has never been seen as controversial, since it's in the national interest that both sides have well-researched policies. It's being reduced at the same time as new restrictions are imposed on another funding stream for the opposition, union donations.
If a genuine attempt was being made to reduce the cost of politics, few would grumble - we could lower the national spending limits and close the loopholes on targeting of marginals. But nothing whatsoever is being done to reduce the flow of money from businesses to the governing party. The intent is clearly partisan.
Businesses are able to fund whoever they want with their own money. Unions are having their right to fund whoever they want with other people's money restricted. It's an asymmetric problem so of course deserves an asymmetric response.
As for Short money, if it's to help opposition parties research policies, Corbyn's Labour doesn't need it: he already knows what he likes and who he wants to emulate.
I would expect the supervisor to get a pay rise though it may be less than 20%
Now we're making progress.
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
What an utterly bizarre attitude. Such hostility to people getting more money at a time when the labour market is buoyant and when employers could do with a nudge to make their employees more productive is baffling.
Mr Meeks, if it's bizarre perhaps you could help Mr Thompson out and answer my question below. It's easy to laud a popular, vote winning policy without looking in to the ramifications. You can call me angry, hostile or bizarre but you still won't address my perfectly reasonable questions.
It's scarcely a queation. The longstanding policy is to ensure that all employees receive a wage of a given value. That value is to increase sharply but effectively the same policy continues, at a higher level of aspiration. What employers choose to do in response for employees earning more than that value is their business.
Should it increase by further step changes in the future? Why not, as and when the economy is sufficeintly strong to bear those increased aspirations? Should we be aiming for complete equality of wages? That's not on anyone's agenda as far as I know and it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I'm completely at a loss to see just what riles you so much about this.
I appreciate you're at a loss but Mr Thompson and other Tories on here know exactly the point I'm making. You don't roll back the state on one hand and enforce pay rises on companies on the other.
Now you're not the only person that thinks a living wage is a good idea, I'm curious why those that opposed a min wage now want to raise it.
Incidentally, I haven't said whether or not I agree with it.
@blackburn63 is correct that the living wage will affect more people than the current NMW. It means that relatively modest differentials amongst the low skilled become devalued since they get paid the same. This can reduce the incentive to train and get qualifications which can have long term implications for productivity. It also increases the marginal cost of labour which means that the "natural" rate of unemployment will be fractionally higher than it would be in a genuinely free market.
But I am still strongly in favour of it. Once you accept that the State has some sort of duty to provide a safety net which allows people to have a minimum standard of living the question is really who pays for it. WTC puts an unacceptable and unsustainable share of that burden on the tax payer. It should rest on those who want to employ the worker and make a profit from his labour. Increasing the cost of labour also incentivises employers to improve productivity offsetting the negative effect I have described above.
What is the sustainable level of living wage very much depends on the state of the economy and the opportunities available to make profit from labour. When the economy is generating hundreds of thousands of additional jobs a year there is, as Alastair points out, an opportunity to transfer more of the costs of employment to the employer and Osborne was right to take it. The living wage is one of his more important policies in delivering welfare cuts and I think, despite the issues in paragraph 1, Tories should support it wholeheartedly.
You still don't address my question about the impact on SMEs and those currently earning the living wage.
This is a clever tactic, publish a popular but ill considered policy and then attack as heartless those who oppose it. Labour did it for 18 years now the Tories have picked up the baton.
I've already been called angry and hostile for asking perfectly reasonable questions.
Osborne has a massive problem, the living wage will massively Impact SMEs, now he wants them to file tax returns quarterly. Thatcher understood who voted for her.
I would expect the supervisor to get a pay rise though it may be less than 20%
Now we're making progress.
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
What an utterly bizarre attitude. Such hostility to people getting more money at a time when the labour market is buoyant and when employers could do with a nudge to make their employees more productive is baffling.
Mr Meeks, if it's bizarre perhaps you could help Mr Thompson out and answer my question below. It's easy to laud a popular, vote winning policy without looking in to the ramifications. You can call me angry, hostile or bizarre but you still won't address my perfectly reasonable questions.
It's scarcely a queation. The longstanding policy is to ensure that all employees receive a wage of a given value. That value is to increase sharply but effectively the same policy continues, at a higher level of aspiration. What employers choose to do in response for employees earning more than that value is their business.
Should it increase by further step changes in the future? Why not, as and when the economy is sufficeintly strong to bear those increased aspirations? Should we be aiming for complete equality of wages? That's not on anyone's agenda as far as I know and it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I'm completely at a loss to see just what riles you so much about this.
I appreciate you're at a loss but Mr Thompson and other Tories on here know exactly the point I'm making. You don't roll back the state on one hand and enforce pay rises on companies on the other.
Now you're not the only person that thinks a living wage is a good idea, I'm curious why those that opposed a min wage now want to raise it.
Incidentally, I haven't said whether or not I agree with it.
I would expect the supervisor to get a pay rise though it may be less than 20%
Now we're making progress.
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
What an utterly bizarre attitude. Such hostility to people getting more money at a time when the labour market is buoyant and when employers could do with a nudge to make their employees more productive is baffling.
Mr Meeks, if it's bizarre perhaps you could help Mr Thompson out and answer my question below. It's easy to laud a popular, vote winning policy without looking in to the ramifications. You can call me angry, hostile or bizarre but you still won't address my perfectly reasonable questions.
It's scarcely a queation. The longstanding policy is to ensure that all employees receive a wage of a given value. That value is to increase sharply but effectively the same policy continues, at a higher level of aspiration. What employers choose to do in response for employees earning more than that value is their business.
Should it increase by further step changes in the future? Why not, as and when the economy is sufficeintly strong to bear those increased aspirations? Should we be aiming for complete equality of wages? That's not on anyone's agenda as far as I know and it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I'm completely at a loss to see just what riles you so much about this.
I appreciate you're at a loss but Mr Thompson and other Tories on here know exactly the point I'm making. You don't roll back the state on one hand and enforce pay rises on companies on the other.
Now you're not the only person that thinks a living wage is a good idea, I'm curious why those that opposed a min wage now want to raise it.
Incidentally, I haven't said whether or not I agree with it.
I would expect the supervisor to get a pay rise though it may be less than 20%
Now we're making progress.
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
What an utterly bizarre attitude. Such hostility to people getting more money at a time when the labour market is buoyant and when employers could do with a nudge to make their employees more productive is baffling.
Mr Meeks, if it's bizarre perhaps you could help Mr Thompson out and answer my question below. It's easy to laud a popular, vote winning policy without looking in to the ramifications. You can call me angry, hostile or bizarre but you still won't address my perfectly reasonable questions.
It's scarcely a queation. The longstanding policy is to ensure that all employees receive a wage of a given value. That value is to increase sharply but effectively the same policy continues, at a higher level of aspiration. What employers choose to do in response for employees earning more than that value is their business.
Should it increase by further step changes in the future? Why not, as and when the economy is sufficeintly strong to bear those increased aspirations? Should we be aiming for complete equality of wages? That's not on anyone's agenda as far as I know and it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I'm completely at a loss to see just what riles you so much about this.
I appreciate you're at a loss but Mr Thompson and other Tories on here know exactly the point I'm making. You don't roll back the state on one hand and enforce pay rises on companies on the other.
Now you're not the only person that thinks a living wage is a good idea, I'm curious why those that opposed a min wage now want to raise it.
Incidentally, I haven't said whether or not I agree with it.
I would expect the supervisor to get a pay rise though it may be less than 20%
Now we're making progress.
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
What an utterly bizarre attitude. Such hostility to people getting more money at a time when the labour market is buoyant and when employers could do with a nudge to make their employees more productive is baffling.
Mr Meeks, if it's bizarre perhaps you could help Mr Thompson out and answer my question below. It's easy to laud a popular, vote winning policy without looking in to the ramifications. You can call me angry, hostile or bizarre but you still won't address my perfectly reasonable questions.
It's scarcely a queation. The longstanding policy is to ensure that all employees receive a wage of a given value. That value is to increase sharply but effectively the same policy continues, at a higher level of aspiration. What employers choose to do in response for employees earning more than that value is their business.
Should it increase by further step changes in the future? Why not, as and when the economy is sufficeintly strong to bear those increased aspirations? Should we be aiming for complete equality of wages? That's not on anyone's agenda as far as I know and it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I'm completely at a loss to see just what riles you so much about this.
I appreciate you're at a loss but Mr Thompson and other Tories on here know exactly the point I'm making. You don't roll back the state on one hand and enforce pay rises on companies on the other.
Now you're not the only person that thinks a living wage is a good idea, I'm curious why those that opposed a min wage now want to raise it.
Incidentally, I haven't said whether or not I agree with it.
You've totally missed the tax/benefits point.
No I haven't.
And you wonder why you are seen as hostile.
Having followed this debate and its tone, I would question any of the participants being labelled as hostile.
We absolutely need a functioning Opposition but it's not the Government's job to provide it. Of course the Government should not do anything genuinely anti-democratic - real gerrymandering, for example - and if it does that should be vigorously opposed by everyone. I don't think that applies here.
The broader problem here is that since Labour have decided to entertain themselves in a gentleman's way rather than putting up an alternative that looks like it may have a reasonable shot of taking over the government, the governing party doesn't need to worry that it'll end up in opposition. That removes the incentives to make sure the system is balanced so they don't get too badly screwed when their term in office comes to an end.
I would expect the supervisor to get a pay rise though it may be less than 20%
Now we're making progress.
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
What an utterly bizarre attitude. Such hostility to people getting more money at a time when the labour market is buoyant and when employers could do with a nudge to make their employees more productive is baffling.
Mr Meeks, if it's bizarre perhaps you could help Mr Thompson out and answer my question below. It's easy to laud a popular, vote winning policy without looking in to the ramifications. You can call me angry, hostile or bizarre but you still won't address my perfectly reasonable questions.
It's scarcely a queation. The longstanding policy is to ensure that all employees receive a wage of a given value. That value is to increase sharply but effectively the same policy continues, at a higher level of aspiration. What employers choose to do in response for employees earning more than that value is their business.
Should it increase by further step changes in the future? Why not, as and when the economy is sufficeintly strong to bear those increased aspirations? Should we be aiming for complete equality of wages? That's not on anyone's agenda as far as I know and it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I'm completely at a loss to see just what riles you so much about this.
I appreciate you're at a loss but Mr Thompson and other Tories on here know exactly the point I'm making. You don't roll back the state on one hand and enforce pay rises on companies on the other.
Now you're not the only person that thinks a living wage is a good idea, I'm curious why those that opposed a min wage now want to raise it.
Incidentally, I haven't said whether or not I agree with it.
Did anyone see Major on Marr? Not many impressed tweeters - saying for someone arguing for Remain, he gave a long list of reasons to Leave.
He did a Chauncey the Gardener routine full of homilies and "it will all be sorted in a compromise"... but at one point he went off message and listed all the things that the EC was not doing for us in blocking our commercial services and treating us badly. But without any solution to the past (and future) bad treatment. Similar to an abused partner choosing to stay in an abusive relationship with "but he's good to the kids".
Mr. L., I often read on these pages of people wanting to know what precisely what what the out option would entail. Would we have X, or Y, would we be a member of A and under what terms? And so on. The problem is that nobody can know. A leaving state's future relationship with the EU can only be negotiated after that state has decided to leave and has invoked Article 50. It is EU's very own Catch 22.
So, if you want to know what leaving would entail vis a vis our future relationship with the EU then you are going to be disappointed. Furthermore, anyone trying to make their case to go or stay on the basis of the terms of that relationship (looking at you FlightPath) is being disingenuous.
I suppose the out campaigners could campaign on what they would hope to negotiate, but that would be a mess a minute's consideration would reveal. Better then to campaign on broad principles, immigration, rule of law, ability to make our own mistakes, ability to kick out the rascals who make the mistakes, outward looking to the world, freedom, £10bn a year contributions, and so on and so forth.
On a tangent, there will be a new EU treaty see the Five President's Report and that treaty will I think cast the UK into associate member status by virtue of the fact that we will not be a member of the Euro. However the timescale for the new treaty is not one that suits Mr. Cameron. So even if Remain wins this time I think there will be another referendum within ten years or so as to whether the UK will want to be an associate member.
Excellent post David. Can I at least say I'm delighted to hear that a man as well-respected as you are is seriously considering Leave.
I agree with you - for me, I think it boils down to this: the EU status quo is not a realistic option for our national interest for the reasons you outline. Apart from the development and structure of the single market, I fail to see any additional (real) extra influence we obtain from remaining within the EU's existing governance structures that we couldn't match from outside. The foundation of our power is our economic strength, military/diplomatic alliances and our soft cultural influences.
So, either we have a solid and serious renegotiation of our position within the EU, that recognises the UK is a special case, or we leave it and seek to build one from outside it.
Personally, I would prefer to leave and join EFTA. That would not prevent us from stopping us working collaboratively with our European neighbours on the continent on matters of mutual interest.
Neither would it solve all the world's woes, but it would be a great start to improving our self-governance whilst maintaining predictability and stability of our relationship with the EU in the short-medium term.
I'm completely at a loss to see just what riles you so much about this.
I imagine he is trying to say that if the employee in question is generating £7.00 of value per hour, an employee might consider keeping them on at £6.70 NMW, but if he is expected to pay the current National Living Wage of £7.20 then the employer might struggle to justify the providing that position in his company, more so by 2020 when its over £9 per hour.
I would expect the supervisor to get a pay rise though it may be less than 20%
Now we're making progress.
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
What an utterly bizarre attitude. Such hostility to people getting more money at a time when the labour market is buoyant and when employers could do with a nudge to make their employees more productive is baffling.
Mr Meeks, if it's bizarre perhaps you could help Mr Thompson out and answer my question below. It's easy to laud a popular, vote winning policy without looking in to the ramifications. You can call me angry, hostile or bizarre but you still won't address my perfectly reasonable questions.
It's scarcely a queation. The longstanding policy is to ensure that all employees receive a wage of a given value. That value is to increase sharply but effectively the same policy continues, at a higher level of aspiration. What employers choose to do in response for employees earning more than that value is their business.
Should it increase by further step changes in the future? Why not, as and when the economy is sufficeintly strong to bear those increased aspirations? Should we be aiming for complete equality of wages? That's not on anyone's agenda as far as I know and it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I'm completely at a loss to see just what riles you so much about this.
I appreciate you're at a loss but Mr Thompson and other Tories on here know exactly the point I'm making. You don't roll back the state on one hand and enforce pay rises on companies on the other.
Now you're not the only person that thinks a living wage is a good idea, I'm curious why those that opposed a min wage now want to raise it.
Incidentally, I haven't said whether or not I agree with it.
You've totally missed the tax/benefits point.
No I haven't.
And you wonder why you are seen as hostile.
Dear me, you accuse me of something unfairly and then call me hostile!
I'd be grateful if you could address me questions below.
ICYMI-@Kevin_Maguire Dec 19 "Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity". Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
That a number of individually justifiable measures need to be taken just suggests that the previous government was quite happy to manipulate the system for their own advantage and that these need to be reversed.
Complaining about the cut in Short money in particular is not likely to meet with much favour from taxpayers who have had to deal with plenty of cuts themselves.
I wouldn't necessarily agree that the individual measures are justifiable, but that's not Rawnsley's point. There are lots of things in the political landscape that are arguably undesirable and could be changed, but if you select only those which damage whoever happens to be in opposition, there an overall undemocratic intent at work.
To take your example, funding of opposition. The Short money was introduced by a Labour government to help the opposition research alternative policies, to compensate for the lack of access to the Civil Service. It has never been seen as controversial, since it's in the national interest that both sides have well-researched policies. It's being reduced at the same time as new restrictions are imposed on another funding stream for the opposition, union donations.
If a genuine attempt was being made to reduce the cost of politics, few would grumble - we could lower the national spending limits and close the loopholes on targeting of marginals. But nothing whatsoever is being done to reduce the flow of money from businesses to the governing party. The intent is clearly partisan.
Businesses are able to fund whoever they want with their own money. Unions are having their right to fund whoever they want with other people's money restricted. It's an asymmetric problem so of course deserves an asymmetric response.
As for Short money, if it's to help opposition parties research policies, Corbyn's Labour doesn't need it: he already knows what he likes and who he wants to emulate.
Unions have representative conferencesx where the ordinary member has a chance to have his or her say.
Major is trying to play a clever game, as he did when he was PM, on this issue: pretending to be concerned but then arguing that staying in is the pragmatic and reasonable choice.
It's worth remembering that (despite Richard N's moans about Labour PMs giving away Britain's vetoes etc.) no-one has done more to turn the EU into an uncomfortable place for the UK than Major.
He could and should have stopped Maastricht. He would have signed us up to euro as well had he not been forced not to by some of his colleagues.
He represents the defeatist Foreign Office mentality more than anyone but hides it behind a mask of reasonableness.
I would expect the supervisor to get a pay rise though it may be less than 20%
Now we're making progress.
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
What an utterly bizarre attitude. Such hostility to people getting more money at a time when the labour market is buoyant and when employers could do with a nudge to make their employees more productive is baffling.
Mr Meeks, if it's bizarre perhaps you could help Mr Thompson out and answer my question below. It's easy to laud a popular, vote winning policy without looking in to the ramifications. You can call me angry, hostile or bizarre but you still won't address my perfectly reasonable questions.
It's scarcely a queation. The longstanding policy is to ensure that all employees receive a wage of a given value. That value is to increase sharply but effectively the same policy continues, at a higher level of aspiration. What employers choose to do in response for employees earning more than that value is their business.
Should it increase by further step changes in the future? Why not, as and when the economy is sufficeintly strong to bear those increased aspirations? Should we be aiming for complete equality of wages? That's not on anyone's agenda as far as I know and it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I'm completely at a loss to see just what riles you so much about this.
I appreciate you're at a loss but Mr Thompson and other Tories on here know exactly the point I'm making. You don't roll back the state on one hand and enforce pay rises on companies on the other.
Now you're not the only person that thinks a living wage is a good idea, I'm curious why those that opposed a min wage now want to raise it.
Incidentally, I haven't said whether or not I agree with it.
You've totally missed the tax/benefits point.
No I haven't.
That's an interesting diversionary tactic which I'm prepared to answer at length another time.
But I'm genuinely interested in the Tory introduction of a living wage having opposed it so virulently under labour, albeit under another name.
I guess we shall have another thread where Leave supporters can't discern any weakness in any aspect of their side's case and Remain supporters are equally steadfast in the rightness of their position....
'The Economist' gave the perfect reason to leave the EU during the Consti-Treaty. That fact that a lawyer chooses to avoid sage advice says so much....
Actually I have addressed them. It will increase their cost base. They will have to charge more for their services or improve productivity enough to absorb them. At the margins there will be a loss of employment but the overall gain for the State is the cost of labour is more appropriately allocated to the employer.
It is not a "no brainer" but if the corner shop pays less we, the taxpayers, pay more. Where that trade off is best placed is tricky and liable to change as the economy changes but the objective of getting the cost of labour back on the employer is sound tory philosophy.
And there really is no need to be quite so defensive. The "free market" position is perfectly rational and supported by many on the right. I personally don't think they are right about this.
You still don't address my question about the impact on SMEs and those currently earning the living wage.
This is a clever tactic, publish a popular but ill considered policy and then attack as heartless those who oppose it. Labour did it for 18 years now the Tories have picked up the baton.
I've already been called angry and hostile for asking perfectly reasonable questions.
Osborne has a massive problem, the living wage will massively Impact SMEs, now he wants them to file tax returns quarterly. Thatcher understood who voted for her.
Mr 63, if someone has a business model based on the state paying his workers enough to live on then he deserves to go under. Actually what such a business owner is doing is enriching himself at the expense of the taxpayer.
(For those that worry about such things please read he/his/himself as gender neutral shorthand. I do know that ladies also run SMEs)
Comments
Complaining about the cut in Short money in particular is not likely to meet with much favour from taxpayers who have had to deal with plenty of cuts themselves.
A problem with that is one of definition. What is 'ever closer union'? What is 'federalism' ? It would also be possible for items we want to be wrapped up with other powers we do not, making it an associate membership in name only.
If there is going to be 'associate membership' then its exact meaning and bounds need to be defined and agreed, ideally before the vote. And that isn't going to happen.
If the UK leaves the EU, it will not be the UK's 'fault'. It'll be the EU's for ignoring that many citizens in some countries are not exactly content with them. They've driven onwards in the direction of a superstate, leaving many citizens behind.
That's a powerful message and one that will unsettle Tory inners because they know it's accurate. He's negotiating about migrant benefits but that's irrelevant, the fact is he has to negotiate how he spends UK taxpayers money.
Tories that continually laud Osborne for reducing the state might be at odds with that.
Ultimately that is what it is all about.
And concerning 'associate membership' PBers should be aware this suggested status has been put forward by European federalists.
It does not represent a dilution of current membership terms or even the 'status quo'. It is merely intended as a slow lane to the same ultimate federal destination - towards which the Eurozone core will be moving at a faster pace.
I like Major, I met him at a cricket lunch a few years back, a very nice man.
I'm constantly amazed how kippers sound so angry about everything. You can picture them reading the phone book with barely suppressed fury.
Funnily enough I'm reminded of a piece Dan Hodges wrote a few weeks ago in which he effectively begged the Conservatives to have mercy on Labour, talking about the Labour Party's place in our history and how the Tories should not utterly destroy it. But - "You must think this, look you, that the worm will do his kind."
In other words, one can't appeal to the Tories to ensure effective opposition to the Tories. It's the centre-left's task to get it's act together and become a credible alternative government - the only really effective opposition. Nothing the Conservatives are doing would prevent a competent-looking centre-left party from winning power. Heck, the Conservatives might even come to regret that the Lords could no longer vote down SIs.
It would be easier to manage expectations if we were not a big net contributor. The voters know, however, that we are paying. And they don;t see why, when you are paying, you don;t get to choose the Europe you want.
I'd like an economist on here to explain this please:
The living wage will mean that those now on the min wage will get a pay rise of around 20%, if that's inaccurate I stand to be corrected but actually the % figure is irrelevant.
Will those currently on the living wage also get a 20% rise? Or are we now aiming for a situation where everybody gets paid the same, so that a cleaner will now get paid the same as their supervisor?
It's a serious question that so far I haven't found the answer to.
On the birthday front.
I'm sandwiched between Plato and Flightpath.
Edit and the correct figure is approximately 10%
If it's EU vs EEA, then a lot of business people support Out, but a lot of people for whom immigration is the biggest issue throw their hands up and complain that it's a big stitch up.
If it's EU vs Completely Out, then there will be very little business support, and quite a lot of EEA supporters will reluctantly decide that going with the EU is less of a risk.
Let me tell you about my day job. I am a fund manager at a medium sized firm. We have a lot of European clients - mostly in France and Norway. The EEA single market for services (and financial services) means we can sell to people across the continent under UK regulation, and without having local offices and regulated entities, and capital sitting in local company subsidiaries, etc. When we sell our products to Australians and Canadians, we use local firms to provide that regulatory shield for us. But, of course, they take a third of the revenue. If we left and joined the EEA, it would be business as usual for us. If we left and went completely alone, it would be a very serious issue for our business. We'd either need to invest in opening a regulated Paris office, and put up capital there, or use a firm inside the EU to distribute our product and lose a significant chunk of the revenue. I don't think anyone at my firm would choose Completely Out over EU. But quite a lot would choose EEA over EU.
So the cleaner gets 20%, the supervisor slightly less, what about the manager?
Because eventually they'll all get paid the same.
Perhaps Osborne can give them all a blue suit and a bicycle too.
Was Scargill as abrasive as he came across? I often wondered if he was as obnoxious as he appeared.
But don't forget that half the country barely sees an immigrant. The vast majority of immigration (particularly EU immigration) is into the South East.
That said it is probably non EU immigration that bothers people more, although in 10 years or so when the migrants are EU citizens it will be more of a concern
The living wage and the Tories reminds me of Basil Fawlty.
Don't mention the war, I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it.
I'll bring up the question periodically, there's a few clued up (sic) Tories on here that will be able to explain all.
1. The extension of QMV through Lisbon combined with the development of a EZ bloc that has that majority. It seems inevitable that the economic policy of the EU will develop in ways not to our advantage and that we may not be able to stop it. Examples have been the FTT, which basically meant London paying taxes for the whole of the EU, the slow to stop development of the single market in services in which we are strong and the threats of having to have establishments in the EZ to provide financial services there.
It has to be recognised that leaving the EU does not diminish some of those threats, it may well even increase them. It is very unlikely, for example, that any agreement within the EEA or out of it will give our financial services industry the sort of access it has even at the moment. Frankfurt and Paris will undoubtedly seek to recover some of their lost business and tax revenue. But being in a club where our views and interests are so capable of being overridden is not attractive either. If we control access to our own markets we have something valuable to bargain with.
For me, this is what Cameron's renegotiation is all about. The rest is gestures and side issues. If he came back with a deal on this that protected our interests I would be open to persuasion by remain. I think it is increasingly unlikely that he will.
2. Much more trivial but the European Parliament annoys the hell out of me. It has no democratic mandate worth a damn given the level of participation across the EU, it is full of pointless buffoons (not all in UKIP) and seems open to corruption by special interest groups. It is almost never held accountable for its actions and media oversight is non existent. Having 2 bases is just ridiculous. I agree with Cameron that the national Parliaments should have a bigger role.
3. It is obviously absurd that the UK taxpayer pays CB to children living in Poland who have never come to the UK just because their dad has a job here. This really has to stop.
4. I am increasingly concerned about the implications of our idiotic politicians incorporating things like ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms into law. This is giving courts a role far beyond anything I recognise as law. This is alarming enough in our domestic courts but giving these sorts of powers and responsibilities to the CJE is dangerously anti-democratic.
These topics and more make me doubt that remaining in the EU is attractive but sometimes in life you need to choose between a bad option and a worse one. I need to be confident that Leave gives us a better option which means I need to know what that is and how it addresses these concerns. I am confident that at least 0.1% of the population thinks the same way.
"Why did 800 people boo George Osborne at the London premiere of the new Star Wars film? That was the cinema's capacity".
Confirms Osborne's price is too short and a lay,lay,lay-in the betting sense.If he goes for Remain,he could easily be on the wrong side of the selectorate of the Tory party and he polls worse than Jezza.Corbyn v Osborne could swing things Labour's way on the vital question of leadership.Osborne just hasn't got it and Corbyn's consensual and inclusive style may be an attractive alternative.
Happy Birthday!
To take your example, funding of opposition. The Short money was introduced by a Labour government to help the opposition research alternative policies, to compensate for the lack of access to the Civil Service. It has never been seen as controversial, since it's in the national interest that both sides have well-researched policies. It's being reduced at the same time as new restrictions are imposed on another funding stream for the opposition, union donations.
If a genuine attempt was being made to reduce the cost of politics, few would grumble - we could lower the national spending limits and close the loopholes on targeting of marginals. But nothing whatsoever is being done to reduce the flow of money from businesses to the governing party. The intent is clearly partisan.
Me: That's actually less than I'd have thought.
The things about the EU that Leavers see as bad are the very same things that Remainers see as good.
Still no response from the pb Tories.
Should it increase by further step changes in the future? Why not, as and when the economy is sufficeintly strong to bear those increased aspirations? Should we be aiming for complete equality of wages? That's not on anyone's agenda as far as I know and it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I'm completely at a loss to see just what riles you so much about this.
Now you're not the only person that thinks a living wage is a good idea, I'm curious why those that opposed a min wage now want to raise it.
Incidentally, I haven't said whether or not I agree with it.
If I think about Labour's 'place in our history' that makes the idea of the party being utterly destroyed rather attractive...
Great website.
But I am still strongly in favour of it. Once you accept that the State has some sort of duty to provide a safety net which allows people to have a minimum standard of living the question is really who pays for it. WTC puts an unacceptable and unsustainable share of that burden on the tax payer. It should rest on those who want to employ the worker and make a profit from his labour. Increasing the cost of labour also incentivises employers to improve productivity offsetting the negative effect I have described above.
What is the sustainable level of living wage very much depends on the state of the economy and the opportunities available to make profit from labour. When the economy is generating hundreds of thousands of additional jobs a year there is, as Alastair points out, an opportunity to transfer more of the costs of employment to the employer and Osborne was right to take it. The living wage is one of his more important policies in delivering welfare cuts and I think, despite the issues in paragraph 1, Tories should support it wholeheartedly.
As for Short money, if it's to help opposition parties research policies, Corbyn's Labour doesn't need it: he already knows what he likes and who he wants to emulate.
This is a clever tactic, publish a popular but ill considered policy and then attack as heartless those who oppose it. Labour did it for 18 years now the Tories have picked up the baton.
I've already been called angry and hostile for asking perfectly reasonable questions.
Osborne has a massive problem, the living wage will massively Impact SMEs, now he wants them to file tax returns quarterly. Thatcher understood who voted for her.
I'm unclear beyond immigration/getting out of the EU and some broadbrush libertarian stuff, what UKIP is about.
Good day to all.
Mr. L., I often read on these pages of people wanting to know what precisely what what the out option would entail. Would we have X, or Y, would we be a member of A and under what terms? And so on. The problem is that nobody can know. A leaving state's future relationship with the EU can only be negotiated after that state has decided to leave and has invoked Article 50. It is EU's very own Catch 22.
So, if you want to know what leaving would entail vis a vis our future relationship with the EU then you are going to be disappointed. Furthermore, anyone trying to make their case to go or stay on the basis of the terms of that relationship (looking at you FlightPath) is being disingenuous.
I suppose the out campaigners could campaign on what they would hope to negotiate, but that would be a mess a minute's consideration would reveal. Better then to campaign on broad principles, immigration, rule of law, ability to make our own mistakes, ability to kick out the rascals who make the mistakes, outward looking to the world, freedom, £10bn a year contributions, and so on and so forth.
On a tangent, there will be a new EU treaty see the Five President's Report and that treaty will I think cast the UK into associate member status by virtue of the fact that we will not be a member of the Euro. However the timescale for the new treaty is not one that suits Mr. Cameron. So even if Remain wins this time I think there will be another referendum within ten years or so as to whether the UK will want to be an associate member.
Excellent post David. Can I at least say I'm delighted to hear that a man as well-respected as you are is seriously considering Leave.
I agree with you - for me, I think it boils down to this: the EU status quo is not a realistic option for our national interest for the reasons you outline. Apart from the development and structure of the single market, I fail to see any additional (real) extra influence we obtain from remaining within the EU's existing governance structures that we couldn't match from outside. The foundation of our power is our economic strength, military/diplomatic alliances and our soft cultural influences.
So, either we have a solid and serious renegotiation of our position within the EU, that recognises the UK is a special case, or we leave it and seek to build one from outside it.
Personally, I would prefer to leave and join EFTA. That would not prevent us from stopping us working collaboratively with our European neighbours on the continent on matters of mutual interest.
Neither would it solve all the world's woes, but it would be a great start to improving our self-governance whilst maintaining predictability and stability of our relationship with the EU in the short-medium term.
I'd be grateful if you could address me questions below.
It's worth remembering that (despite Richard N's moans about Labour PMs giving away Britain's vetoes etc.) no-one has done more to turn the EU into an uncomfortable place for the UK than Major.
He could and should have stopped Maastricht. He would have signed us up to euro as well had he not been forced not to by some of his colleagues.
He represents the defeatist Foreign Office mentality more than anyone but hides it behind a mask of reasonableness.
I'm unclear beyond immigration/getting out of the EU and some broadbrush libertarian stuff, what UKIP is about.
That's an interesting diversionary tactic which I'm prepared to answer at length another time.
But I'm genuinely interested in the Tory introduction of a living wage having opposed it so virulently under labour, albeit under another name.
Actually I have addressed them. It will increase their cost base. They will have to charge more for their services or improve productivity enough to absorb them. At the margins there will be a loss of employment but the overall gain for the State is the cost of labour is more appropriately allocated to the employer.
It is not a "no brainer" but if the corner shop pays less we, the taxpayers, pay more. Where that trade off is best placed is tricky and liable to change as the economy changes but the objective of getting the cost of labour back on the employer is sound tory philosophy.
And there really is no need to be quite so defensive. The "free market" position is perfectly rational and supported by many on the right. I personally don't think they are right about this.
(For those that worry about such things please read he/his/himself as gender neutral shorthand. I do know that ladies also run SMEs)
The welfare system relating to tax credits and housing benefit could have been modified without changing the minimum wage.
There is only partial interaction between the NMW and in-work benefits.