The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Toffeelover]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...trengthen-unions-confront-corporate-interests

How to eradicate poverty: spend more on wages and strengthen unions
Joanna Mack

The 1980s decision to embrace the market, union-busting and deregulation, together with disinvestment in public housing and rolling privatisation is one of history’s great political blunders.


‘Reversing poverty requires a more progressive tax system and a shift in the political mindset towards accepting that poverty is driven by an accumulated reduction in opportunities, in pay and in life chances.’ Photograph: Murdo MacLeod




The findings of our four Breadline Britain, and Poverty and Social Exclusion, surveys since 1983 show that poverty in the UK is at a 30-year high. The rise is not explained by a sudden explosion of a culture of poverty, nor by out-of-control benefits. Rather, it is because of a surge in the numbers of working poor. It’s about the way that the politically driven shift in power from the workforce to corporations has shrunk the share of the cake going to the bottom half of the labour force, leaving growing numbers at the mercy of low-pay, zero-hours and insecure contracts.

This pain will continue, whoever forms the next government. Labour will cut less deeply, but both major parties plan further cuts in welfare and social spending. Yet the research is clear: what reduces poverty is the share of national income we devote to social spending. No advanced economy achieves a low poverty rate with low levels of social spending.

Reversing the poverty tide requires fundamental social and economic reform. Tinkering is not enough. It means a more progressive tax system and addressing personal and corporate tax avoidance. It requires a shift in the political mindset, away from pinning the blame on the poor themselves and towards accepting that poverty is driven by an accumulated reduction in opportunities, in pay and in life chances.

We need measures to boost the share of national income going to wages and to narrow the pay gap between top and bottom.

It also means a very different economic model. We need measures to boost the share of national income going to wages and to narrow the yawning pay gap between top and bottom. Achieving this requires much more than modest rises in the minimum wage and in the top rate of income tax. It will also mean confronting corporate interests and reversing the sustained decline in workforce bargaining power in the UK. International evidence shows that the higher the level of trade union membership, the lower the degree of inequality. Another vital measure must be a more concerted attempt to reduce the average gender pay gap by raising women’s wages. Currently the gap stands at 19%.

Such measures are critical to cutting workforce poverty levels. Yet few of them are on the political agenda. The 1980s decision to embrace the market, union-busting and deregulation, with the accompanying disinvestment in public housing and rolling privatisation is one of history’s great political blunders.

It has weakened the productive base of the economy, spread social recession and plunged millions, unnecessarily, into poverty. Despite its evident flaws, this model with its bias to capital and upflow of wealth is still very much intact. During the 1930s slump, Keynes warned of the continuing grip of old thinking, “practical men … are the slaves of some defunct economists”. This approach is only too relevant today.

Our Breadline Britain research has found a consistent and widespread agreement that citizens are entitled to a minimum standard of living that is relevant to today and sufficient to enable everyone to be full citizens. Yet British policy makers have increasingly failed to back this consensus.

One cannot be optimistic. In 2010, all the political parties signed up to the Child Poverty Act with its legal obligation to reduce poverty. That heady consensus has long been in ruins, and since then, the act’s targets effectively dumped. There are plenty of workable policies that could, with political will, cap and reverse the sustained rise in poverty, yet, in a fundamental failure of democracy, we are close to an election in which the weakest and most vulnerable part of the electorate is simply being sidelined. We must do better than this.

Great post mate. In the 1980s there was legislation, the Employment Laws which at the time Labour were vehemently against but when they got into power they did nothing to repeal any part of that legislation in fact I think they were glad some dirty work had been done for them and decide to just leave it alone.

On the subject of spending as you describe, the difficulty is for example £1000 available, requirements £1100, negative situation what do you do? Borrow against future receipts hoping they will improve. Means one is committed to repaying loan but if receipts are lower the loan still has to be repaid which means lower resources available for the next year.

It becomes a vicious circle. It is not and will not be easy for whoever wins the generalelection.

 

[Blue 1]

David Cameron once again outlined his plan for 'Youth Allowance' today, a £57 per week allowance for adults between the ages of 18-21. The young will be forced to undertake 30 hours/week community service in return for the allowance.

How much longer can this government continue to punish the unemployed? Instead of looking at he root cause, which of course is the lack of jobs and incredibly low degree to employment rate, this government continues to portray the victims as the problem.

To make young people perform community service (a punishment, lest we forgot, which is reserved for criminals) in return for a small amount of 'allowance' is purely degrading.

Once again, the blame of the public is diverted towards the effect, not the cause.

*edit* the report I read reported that youths will receive the allowance for 6 months before being forced into community service, however, it has been announced that community service will start from the first week of signing on.

Cameron is pretending that there is some huge army of kids who go straight on to benefits and get a council house within days of leaving school. It's bollocks.

There are about 190,000 NEETs and the providers of these programmes will have to find placements for them all. There are only two ways of doing that - either the employers will get a bung from the taxpayer to take them on (as with most workfare now), or these kids will be used to replace paid workers, who will then end up going back to where they used to have a paid job, doing workfare.

Cameron knows perfectly well that all these idiotic schemes do not help people to find work. They fail again and again - it's actually worse than doing nothing.
He just wants the taxpayers to know that he is being tough on benefits because he thinks that's what they want to hear - and if his cronies can make money on the back of the free labour than that's OK with him. It's disgraceful.

 

[Toffeelover]

Blue 1, it is rubbish because where are all those vacant council houses?

 

[Seanjd]

Cameron is pretending that there is some huge army of kids who go straight on to benefits and get a council house within days of leaving school. It's bollocks.

There are about 190,000 NEETs and the providers of these programmes will have to find placements for them all. There are only two ways of doing that - either the employers will get a bung from the taxpayer to take them on (as with most workfare now), or these kids will be used to replace paid workers, who will then end up going back to where they used to have a paid job, doing workfare.

Cameron knows perfectly well that all these idiotic schemes do not help people to find work. They fail again and again - it's actually worse than doing nothing.
He just wants the taxpayers to know that he is being tough on benefits because he thinks that's what they want to hear - and if his cronies can make money on the back of the free labour than that's OK with him. It's disgraceful.

Absolutely. Electioneering. At the same time, he is securing the pensioners' votes by claiming he is securing pensions.

I'm sure the likes the G4S will be rubbing their hands together with this reform. Just imagine how many 18-21 year old 'volunteers' they will have providing free labour!

 

[tsubaki]

Cameron is pretending that there is some huge army of kids who go straight on to benefits and get a council house within days of leaving school. It's bollocks.

There are about 190,000 NEETs and the providers of these programmes will have to find placements for them all. There are only two ways of doing that - either the employers will get a bung from the taxpayer to take them on (as with most workfare now), or these kids will be used to replace paid workers, who will then end up going back to where they used to have a paid job, doing workfare.

Cameron knows perfectly well that all these idiotic schemes do not help people to find work. They fail again and again - it's actually worse than doing nothing.
He just wants the taxpayers to know that he is being tough on benefits because he thinks that's what they want to hear - and if his cronies can make money on the back of the free labour than that's OK with him. It's disgraceful.

You are right, though probably mistaken over the reason why he comes up with this sort of thing. You could get loads of young people into work, into trades and into decent jobs if the Government just either enforced the old statutory retirement age, or better yet brought it down to sixty for everyone - but that will never happen because they all vote.

 

[toffee matt]

Cameron is pretending that there is some huge army of kids who go straight on to benefits and get a council house within days of leaving school. It's bollocks.

There are about 190,000 NEETs and the providers of these programmes will have to find placements for them all. There are only two ways of doing that - either the employers will get a bung from the taxpayer to take them on (as with most workfare now), or these kids will be used to replace paid workers, who will then end up going back to where they used to have a paid job, doing workfare.

Cameron knows perfectly well that all these idiotic schemes do not help people to find work. They fail again and again - it's actually worse than doing nothing.
He just wants the taxpayers to know that he is being tough on benefits because he thinks that's what they want to hear - and if his cronies can make money on the back of the free labour than that's OK with him. It's disgraceful.

Ukip voters lap that sort of thing up and Cameron knows it

 

[Bruce Wayne]

You are right, though probably mistaken over the reason why he comes up with this sort of thing. You could get loads of young people into work, into trades and into decent jobs if the Government just either enforced the old statutory retirement age, or better yet brought it down to sixty for everyone - but that will never happen because they all vote.

And because older employees are actually incredibly valuable to society

 

[ilikecheese]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...trengthen-unions-confront-corporate-interests

How to eradicate poverty: spend more on wages and strengthen unions
Joanna Mack

The 1980s decision to embrace the market, union-busting and deregulation, together with disinvestment in public housing and rolling privatisation is one of history’s great political blunders.


‘Reversing poverty requires a more progressive tax system and a shift in the political mindset towards accepting that poverty is driven by an accumulated reduction in opportunities, in pay and in life chances.’ Photograph: Murdo MacLeod




The findings of our four Breadline Britain, and Poverty and Social Exclusion, surveys since 1983 show that poverty in the UK is at a 30-year high. The rise is not explained by a sudden explosion of a culture of poverty, nor by out-of-control benefits. Rather, it is because of a surge in the numbers of working poor. It’s about the way that the politically driven shift in power from the workforce to corporations has shrunk the share of the cake going to the bottom half of the labour force, leaving growing numbers at the mercy of low-pay, zero-hours and insecure contracts.

This pain will continue, whoever forms the next government. Labour will cut less deeply, but both major parties plan further cuts in welfare and social spending. Yet the research is clear: what reduces poverty is the share of national income we devote to social spending. No advanced economy achieves a low poverty rate with low levels of social spending.

Reversing the poverty tide requires fundamental social and economic reform. Tinkering is not enough. It means a more progressive tax system and addressing personal and corporate tax avoidance. It requires a shift in the political mindset, away from pinning the blame on the poor themselves and towards accepting that poverty is driven by an accumulated reduction in opportunities, in pay and in life chances.

We need measures to boost the share of national income going to wages and to narrow the pay gap between top and bottom.

It also means a very different economic model. We need measures to boost the share of national income going to wages and to narrow the yawning pay gap between top and bottom. Achieving this requires much more than modest rises in the minimum wage and in the top rate of income tax. It will also mean confronting corporate interests and reversing the sustained decline in workforce bargaining power in the UK. International evidence shows that the higher the level of trade union membership, the lower the degree of inequality. Another vital measure must be a more concerted attempt to reduce the average gender pay gap by raising women’s wages. Currently the gap stands at 19%.

Such measures are critical to cutting workforce poverty levels. Yet few of them are on the political agenda. The 1980s decision to embrace the market, union-busting and deregulation, with the accompanying disinvestment in public housing and rolling privatisation is one of history’s great political blunders.

It has weakened the productive base of the economy, spread social recession and plunged millions, unnecessarily, into poverty. Despite its evident flaws, this model with its bias to capital and upflow of wealth is still very much intact. During the 1930s slump, Keynes warned of the continuing grip of old thinking, “practical men … are the slaves of some defunct economists”. This approach is only too relevant today.

Our Breadline Britain research has found a consistent and widespread agreement that citizens are entitled to a minimum standard of living that is relevant to today and sufficient to enable everyone to be full citizens. Yet British policy makers have increasingly failed to back this consensus.

One cannot be optimistic. In 2010, all the political parties signed up to the Child Poverty Act with its legal obligation to reduce poverty. That heady consensus has long been in ruins, and since then, the act’s targets effectively dumped. There are plenty of workable policies that could, with political will, cap and reverse the sustained rise in poverty, yet, in a fundamental failure of democracy, we are close to an election in which the weakest and most vulnerable part of the electorate is simply being sidelined. We must do better than this.

Spending more on wages and strengthening unions do create jobs and help eliminate poverty...in SE Asia.

 

[Del]

Cameron is pretending that there is some huge army of kids who go straight on to benefits and get a council house within days of leaving school. It's bollocks.

There are about 190,000 NEETs and the providers of these programmes will have to find placements for them all. There are only two ways of doing that - either the employers will get a bung from the taxpayer to take them on (as with most workfare now), or these kids will be used to replace paid workers, who will then end up going back to where they used to have a paid job, doing workfare.

Cameron knows perfectly well that all these idiotic schemes do not help people to find work. They fail again and again - it's actually worse than doing nothing.
He just wants the taxpayers to know that he is being tough on benefits because he thinks that's what they want to hear - and if his cronies can make money on the back of the free labour than that's OK with him. It's disgraceful.

There is zero evidence to hold up what you claim here

Your just taking things you read out of the Daily Mail and preaching it as gospel

Do some research mate instead of posting lies

 

[The Esk]

Spending more on wages and strengthening unions do create jobs and help eliminate poverty...in SE Asia.

It is an entirely false belief that we have to keep wages low in order to compete with SE Asia and other manufacturing nations and in doing so we benefit our own society.

Low pay equals poor living standards, lower levels of health, lower life expectancy, higher levels of crime and domestic violence. The costs, financial and to society are picked up by the Government yet are never accounted for

Higher pay is perfectly possible but it requires investment in technology and training which will then create a working environment that produced higher productivity levels.

I know from experience, you pay people well, look after your employees and the investment made in people is paid back many, many times.

 

[Toffeelover]

Absolutely. Electioneering. At the same time, he is securing the pensioners' votes by claiming he is securing pensions.

I'm sure the likes the G4S will be rubbing their hands together with this reform. Just imagine how many 18-21 year old 'volunteers' they will have providing free labour!

Sean they all do these promises. Labour, freezing energy prices to 2017 (but do not say what happens when freeze ends also means very rich will benefite), Lower students loans to £6000 (where is the money coming from), Reintroduce a 10p tax band ( but for how much and where is the money coming from) Remember in 2008 brown did away with it and put everyone ( workers) on 20p tax rate big cock up Labour had to borrow £5 billion to correct it), Minimum working wage up to £8 an hour but will take 5 years to get to it, Help for working parents of 3 and 4-year old kids but well off will be able to have it as well (where is the money coming from), Mansion tax to pay for 20,000 nurses and 8,000 doctors, where are they coming from and when do they start,

Sean it just goes on and on, not even going to put in what UKIP or Lib Dems are promising to get votes.

 

[ilikecheese]

It is an entirely false belief that we have to keep wages low in order to compete with SE Asia and other manufacturing nations and in doing so we benefit our own society.

Low pay equals poor living standards, lower levels of health, lower life expectancy, higher levels of crime and domestic violence. The costs, financial and to society are picked up by the Government yet are never accounted for

Higher pay is perfectly possible but it requires investment in technology and training which will then create a working environment that produced higher productivity levels.

I know from experience, you pay people well, look after your employees and the investment made in people is paid back many, many times.

I do agree with you on many fronts here. My main issue is with unions...especially ones that drive wages up so high that the cost is passed on to the average consumer.

It is for this reason that there is so much manufacturing done in SE Asia and the like.

Companies will always look for the most cost effective way to run their business, and if that means moving a call center to India or American automakers building cars in Mexico, they will do it.

 

[Blue 1]

There is zero evidence to hold up what you claim here

Your just taking things you read out of the Daily Mail and preaching it as gospel

Do some research mate instead of posting lies

[Poor language removed] troll tbh.

 

[roydo]

I do agree with you on many fronts here. My main issue is with unions...especially ones that drive wages up so high that the cost is passed on to the average consumer.

It is for this reason that there is so much manufacturing done in SE Asia and the like.

I would hazard a guess that union membership in the UK manufactoring sector is minimal. I am no fan of militant (sic) unions, but to blame them for low cost manufactoring/assembly in SE Asia being attractive to companies is nonsense I am afraid.

High end, quality British manufactoring products, design, and engineering is a much loved and coveted cache is many overseas markets.

And a skilled, well paid workforce is vital to that success.

Just ask the management of Jaguar Land Rover, Rolls Royce, BAE and Marconi to name just 4 off the top of my head.

 

[Milk]

It is an entirely false belief that we have to keep wages low in order to compete with SE Asia and other manufacturing nations and in doing so we benefit our own society.

Low pay equals poor living standards, lower levels of health, lower life expectancy, higher levels of crime and domestic violence. The costs, financial and to society are picked up by the Government yet are never accounted for

Higher pay is perfectly possible but it requires investment in technology and training which will then create a working environment that produced higher productivity levels.

I know from experience, you pay people well, look after your employees and the investment made in people is paid back many, many times.

Whilst I agree with your sentiments regarding pay, investment in technology will actually reduce job opportunities as robotics take an ever greater role.