Jol seems to ignore how we had mass uncontrolled immigration in Labours years which meant people were coming in large numbers from eastern europe and would work for a lot less than the people currently here......this ultimately has helped drag wages down and helped create the squeeze on incomes.....not only that they set up businesses.....roofing, tiling etc which would charge a lot less to people so it didnt help those in self employment......people need to look beyond the Labour spin and see who really did start this crisis off both economically with the crash and the Labour market which had seen the biggest influx in such a short space of time during Labours years....
It was Labour that took millions of (mainly) women out of real poverty level wages of £2 an hour with the NMW. The tories fought hard to retain that disgraceful state of affairs and every single Tory MP voted against the NMW.
It was Labour that took millions of (mainly) women out of real poverty level wages of £2 an hour with the NMW. The tories fought hard to retain that disgraceful state of affairs and every single Tory MP voted against the NMW.
the reason to vote against the NMW was because it then put the power to set the level in the hands of a labour government and therefore the unions.
at the right level the national minimum wage is a force for good. at the wrong level it can be very bad.
whether labour took millions out of poverty really depends on when you stop counting and what measure of poverty you use.
Labour have always believed in spend spend spend.....Council tax rose every year under Labour....its been largely frozen for the last four years.....they employed a million more public sector workers (which as well as wages...pensions have to be paid for)....threw 15billion on a failed nhs computer system down the drain.....started an illegal war in Iraq which cost around 40billion.....allowed unchecked numbers of eastern europeans in....in such a short space of time....helping to lower wages and put so much pressure on our public services and housing.....allowed housing benefit to get out of control......Labour dont know any other way and if people want that again it leaves me speechless.....
oh, i can plummet quite low when sarcasm is required.;-)
my contempt for people is when they vote for a certain party because:
a) they've always voted that party (and are unwilling to at least view the alternatives).
b) they vote for that party because their father did, and his father before him etc.
c) they vote for a certain party because they are the only choice who can keep another party out of government.
and i think we all know a few of the above on this forum, don't we.
Of course none of those ignorant and sweeping generalisations are true of the oh so superior and just 'slightly' arrogant Tory voters (who agree with such comments)
Nope, just 'T' flat cap wringing forelock tugging poorly educated Labour voters eh master?
It was Labour that took millions of (mainly) women out of real poverty level wages of £2 an hour with the NMW. The tories fought hard to retain that disgraceful state of affairs and every single Tory MP voted against the NMW.
The Tories fought tooth and nail against almost every single improvement in pay, working conditions, workers employment rights, health and safety improvements in the workplace, general living standards, look at how hard they fought against the introduction of the welfare system (they are making excellent progress in their plan to destroy it)
and of course let's NEVER forget how hard they fought against the setting up of the NHS,
They haven't and never will change, just look at the behavior of the (apparently) 'watered down' version we have at the moment and their war against the poorest and weakest,
If this is them 'being held back' then God help us if we ever have to endure them unleashed,
Of course none of those ignorant and sweeping generalisations are true of the oh so superior and just 'slightly' arrogant Tory voters (who agree with such comments)
Nope, just 'T' flat cap wringing forelock tugging poorly educated Labour voters eh master?
heh, heh. you just can't help yourself can you. fools rush in and all that.:D
re-read my post again. i think you will find it doesn't mention any political party, but you have made one massive (wrong) assumption, that post is all about labour voters.
heh, heh. you just can't help yourself can you. fools rush in and all that.:D
re-read my post again. i think you will find it doesn't mention any political party, but you have made one massive (wrong) assumption, that post is all about labour voters.
So you have the same contempt for the Tory voters on this forum that this applies to as well ?
They don't need a plan. All the hard work has been done for them. They'll simply need to get elected and sit on their arses and enjoy the strong recovery already set in motion and then take all the credit. It's 1997 all over again.
the reason to vote against the NMW was because it then put the power to set the level in the hands of a labour government and therefore the unions.
at the right level the national minimum wage is a force for good. at the wrong level it can be very bad.
whether labour took millions out of poverty really depends on when you stop counting and what measure of poverty you use.
Why do you have such a problem with unions unions have never set the NMW either under Nu Labour or the Coalition.
Yet under the NMW big business continue to be subsidised by tax credits paid to big mutinationals who could afford higher wages why bother though as>:( the government is there to pay any diiference between a living wage and the NMW.
The problem is that the recovery is uneven and millions of people are not seeing any signs of it. If you haven't had a decent pay rise in years, if you have seen your benefits cut or your rent is rising faster than income then any upturn has passed you by. That's why people don't accept the Tories are doing a good job.
If it's "uneven" in that a portion aren't better off, then "even" could only be when everyone's better off, with no individual glitches. Otherwise it's only ever "uneven". But it can only ever be thus, other than in times of extraordinary boom - but even then you're going to get those who still can't manage to be better off. It's "uneven" pretty much by definition. I'm not sure you can even say "less" or "more" uneven.
If it's "uneven" in that a portion aren't better off, then "even" could only be when everyone's better off, with no individual glitches. Otherwise it's only ever "uneven". But it can only ever be thus, other than in times of extraordinary boom - but even then you're going to get those who still can't manage to be better off. It's "uneven" pretty much by definition. I'm not sure you can even say "less" or "more" uneven.
Not looking for a bit of a strawman there by any chance?
The numbers say that pay now overtakes prices, not that the majority is better off or that Tinkerbell likes spaghetti.
What about the many who work in the NHS then we have this year and next a 1% rise not even consolidated into our basic pay (IE payed as a seperate rate into our pay packets and only lasting one year},if our pay is outstripping prices i will eat my hat.
Why do you have such a problem with unions unions have never set the NMW either under Nu Labour or the Coalition.
Yet under the NMW big business continue to be subsidied by tax credits paid to big mutinationals who could afford higher wages why bother though as>:( the government is there to pay any diiference between a living wage and the NMW.
Also the 'party faithful' or the majority quite often blame the low paid worker for the crime of being low paid, and in-work benefits dependent, their party certainly does, just look at the freeze on in-work benefits for 3 years, (no such freeze on tax cuts for millionaire's or pay rises for MPs though) the spare room fine imposed on many thousands of low paid workers,
Being in work and 'working hard' is no longer seen as good enough by many Tories, the low paid are still a burden on the 'hard working' tax payer, their multi-millionaire employers aren't a burden though, the poor old 'hard working' tax payer doesn't mind subsidising millionaire's, nor do they mind millionaire's exploiting the welfare system by 'scrounging' from the 'hard working' tax payer, probably because They've not been instructed to look that way,
Also the 'party faithful' or the majority quite often blame the low paid worker for the crime of being low paid, and in-work benefits dependent, their party certainly does, just look at the freeze on in-work benefits for 3 years, (no such freeze on tax cuts for millionaire's or pay rises for MPs though) the spare room fine imposed on many thousands of low paid workers,
Being in work and 'working hard' is no longer seen as good enough by many Tories, the low paid are still a burden on the 'hard working' tax payer, their multi-millionaire employers aren't a burden though, the poor old 'hard working' tax payer doesn't mind subsidising millionaire's, nor do they mind millionaire's exploiting the welfare system by 'scrounging' from the 'hard working' tax payer, probably because They've not been instructed to look that way,
How does a "poor old 'hard working' tax payer" (reach for the violin, Agnes) subsidise millionaires?
What about the many who work in the NHS then we have this year and next a 1% rise not even consolidated into our basic pay (IE payed as a seperate rate into our pay packets and only lasting one year},if our pay is outstripping prices i will eat my hat.
If there's a brick wall there, I'll happily bang my head against it. You quoted me fully, then made a point one hundred percent addressed in the bit you quoted, as if you hadn't seen it, much less quoted it in full. Noone said it was, or realistically could be, an even recovery.
Why do you have such a problem with unions unions have never set the NMW either under Nu Labour or the Coalition.
Yet under the NMW big business continue to be subsidised by tax credits paid to big mutinationals who could afford higher wages why bother though as>:( the government is there to pay any diiference between a living wage and the NMW.
'big multinationals who could afford to pay higher wages.' - they could also just **** off to india too. there is a reason they are called multinationals.
your question was lost in there somewhere. why do i have a problem with the unions? because they only serve the interests of their members to the detriment of the rest of us. they are the only organisation on the field in politics that that is very clear they will only look after the interests of people who pay them money and somehow they are applauded for it.
i'm not sure what you are asking about the NMW. i've always said that people's views on it are polarised through their politics. we need to work out at what level it does the most good for the least harm and set it there. some people, and by the sounds of it you are one of them, use their political leanings to determine that it is definitely too low, ignoring the research of the low pay commission.
'big multinationals who could afford to pay higher wages.' - they could also just **** off to india too. there is a reason they are called multinationals.
your question was lost in there somewhere. why do i have a problem with the unions? because they only serve the interests of their members to the detriment of the rest of us. they are the only organisation on the field in politics that that is very clear they will only look after the interests of people who pay them money and somehow they are applauded for it.
i'm not sure what you are asking about the NMW. i've always said that people's views on it are polarised through their politics. we need to work out at what level it does the most good for the least harm and set it there. some people, and by the sounds of it you are one of them, use their political leanings to determine that it is definitely too low, ignoring the research of the low pay commission.
Depends on what you mean by " the rest of us" ?
Are union members somehow different to ordinary members of the public or are "the rest of us" not the same as ordinary members of the public ?
'big multinationals who could afford to pay higher wages.' - they could also just **** off to india too. there is a reason they are called multinationals.
How can Tesco **** off to India? How can Starbucks **** off to India? Even a completely online business like Amazon can't just **** off to India.
Are union members somehow different to ordinary members of the public or are "the rest of us" not the same as ordinary members of the public ?
I thought i was clear about that. when i said the unions serve only the interests of their members to the detriment of the rest of us i meant the people who are not in that specific union.
imagine i said the royal institute of chartered surveyors exists to promote the interests of it's members to the detriment of the rest of us. you'd understand that right? 'the rest of us' would be a reference to those of us who are not in the royal institute of chartered surveyors.
would you still be asking me Are royal institute of chartered surveyors members somehow different to ordinary members of the public or are "the rest of us" not the same as ordinary members of the public ?
How can Tesco **** off to India? How can Starbucks **** off to India? Even a completely online business like Amazon can't just **** off to India.
OK. obviously tesco can't **** off to india. but many businesses can.
are you suggesting that we should have a different minimum wage depending on whether the business can leave? or that we should just let the ones, principally those in manufacturing, that can leave, go?
I thought i was clear about that. when i said the unions serve only the interests of their members to the detriment of the rest of us i meant the people who are not in that specific union.
imagine i said the royal institute of chartered surveyors exists to promote the interests of it's members to the detriment of the rest of us. you'd understand that right? 'the rest of us' would be a reference to those of us who are not in the royal institute of chartered surveyors.
would you still be asking me Are royal institute of chartered surveyors members somehow different to ordinary members of the public or are "the rest of us" not the same as ordinary members of the public ?
Yes but members of all unions are the ordinary men and women on the street,just like you and me, well presuming you're not Royalty or something
Are you saying that if you belonged to a union and the people you worked with went on strike for a better wage and working conditions you wouldn't join them ?
Comments
It was Labour that took millions of (mainly) women out of real poverty level wages of £2 an hour with the NMW. The tories fought hard to retain that disgraceful state of affairs and every single Tory MP voted against the NMW.
the reason to vote against the NMW was because it then put the power to set the level in the hands of a labour government and therefore the unions.
at the right level the national minimum wage is a force for good. at the wrong level it can be very bad.
whether labour took millions out of poverty really depends on when you stop counting and what measure of poverty you use.
I think that just about sums it all up ;-)
I was wondering the same
Of course none of those ignorant and sweeping generalisations are true of the oh so superior and just 'slightly' arrogant Tory voters (who agree with such comments)
Nope, just 'T' flat cap wringing forelock tugging poorly educated Labour voters eh master?
The Tories fought tooth and nail against almost every single improvement in pay, working conditions, workers employment rights, health and safety improvements in the workplace, general living standards, look at how hard they fought against the introduction of the welfare system (they are making excellent progress in their plan to destroy it)
and of course let's NEVER forget how hard they fought against the setting up of the NHS,
They haven't and never will change, just look at the behavior of the (apparently) 'watered down' version we have at the moment and their war against the poorest and weakest,
If this is them 'being held back' then God help us if we ever have to endure them unleashed,
heh, heh. you just can't help yourself can you. fools rush in and all that.:D
re-read my post again. i think you will find it doesn't mention any political party, but you have made one massive (wrong) assumption, that post is all about labour voters.
So you have the same contempt for the Tory voters on this forum that this applies to as well ?
yes i do.
Then fair do's to you
Why do you have such a problem with unions unions have never set the NMW either under Nu Labour or the Coalition.
Yet under the NMW big business continue to be subsidised by tax credits paid to big mutinationals who could afford higher wages why bother though as>:( the government is there to pay any diiference between a living wage and the NMW.
If it's "uneven" in that a portion aren't better off, then "even" could only be when everyone's better off, with no individual glitches. Otherwise it's only ever "uneven". But it can only ever be thus, other than in times of extraordinary boom - but even then you're going to get those who still can't manage to be better off. It's "uneven" pretty much by definition. I'm not sure you can even say "less" or "more" uneven.
Not looking for a bit of a strawman there by any chance?
The numbers say that pay now overtakes prices, not that the majority is better off or that Tinkerbell likes spaghetti.
What about the many who work in the NHS then we have this year and next a 1% rise not even consolidated into our basic pay (IE payed as a seperate rate into our pay packets and only lasting one year},if our pay is outstripping prices i will eat my hat.
Also the 'party faithful' or the majority quite often blame the low paid worker for the crime of being low paid, and in-work benefits dependent, their party certainly does, just look at the freeze on in-work benefits for 3 years, (no such freeze on tax cuts for millionaire's or pay rises for MPs though) the spare room fine imposed on many thousands of low paid workers,
Being in work and 'working hard' is no longer seen as good enough by many Tories, the low paid are still a burden on the 'hard working' tax payer, their multi-millionaire employers aren't a burden though, the poor old 'hard working' tax payer doesn't mind subsidising millionaire's, nor do they mind millionaire's exploiting the welfare system by 'scrounging' from the 'hard working' tax payer, probably because They've not been instructed to look that way,
How does a "poor old 'hard working' tax payer" (reach for the violin, Agnes) subsidise millionaires?
Perhaps by working for a minimum wage that the government subidises through the tax system.
Even though the millionaire may have his tax affairs abroad.
Thanks Richard - I assumed that was OHG's second point.
If there's a brick wall there, I'll happily bang my head against it. You quoted me fully, then made a point one hundred percent addressed in the bit you quoted, as if you hadn't seen it, much less quoted it in full. Noone said it was, or realistically could be, an even recovery.
'big multinationals who could afford to pay higher wages.' - they could also just **** off to india too. there is a reason they are called multinationals.
your question was lost in there somewhere. why do i have a problem with the unions? because they only serve the interests of their members to the detriment of the rest of us. they are the only organisation on the field in politics that that is very clear they will only look after the interests of people who pay them money and somehow they are applauded for it.
i'm not sure what you are asking about the NMW. i've always said that people's views on it are polarised through their politics. we need to work out at what level it does the most good for the least harm and set it there. some people, and by the sounds of it you are one of them, use their political leanings to determine that it is definitely too low, ignoring the research of the low pay commission.
Depends on what you mean by " the rest of us" ?
Are union members somehow different to ordinary members of the public or are "the rest of us" not the same as ordinary members of the public ?
How can Tesco **** off to India? How can Starbucks **** off to India? Even a completely online business like Amazon can't just **** off to India.
I thought i was clear about that. when i said the unions serve only the interests of their members to the detriment of the rest of us i meant the people who are not in that specific union.
imagine i said the royal institute of chartered surveyors exists to promote the interests of it's members to the detriment of the rest of us. you'd understand that right? 'the rest of us' would be a reference to those of us who are not in the royal institute of chartered surveyors.
would you still be asking me Are royal institute of chartered surveyors members somehow different to ordinary members of the public or are "the rest of us" not the same as ordinary members of the public ?
OK. obviously tesco can't **** off to india. but many businesses can.
are you suggesting that we should have a different minimum wage depending on whether the business can leave? or that we should just let the ones, principally those in manufacturing, that can leave, go?
Yes but members of all unions are the ordinary men and women on the street,just like you and me, well presuming you're not Royalty or something
Are you saying that if you belonged to a union and the people you worked with went on strike for a better wage and working conditions you wouldn't join them ?