Bolitics The New Condem Government

[bickster]

Were currently in a situation where tax payers are subsidising a low wage economy. Businesses reap the profits and the rest of us are paying to keep our own wages down. Its absolutely mental, we're paying ourselves out of a pay rise!

People really should wake up and realise this.

[colhint]

Increasing the minimum wage definitely seems like a fairer system of redistribution than benefits because it benefits everyone on a low wage, not just the 'hard-working families' ie victims of their own fecundity.

 

Obviously, higher wage costs will be passed on, which amounts to a regressive tax, but from opinions on here, people seem willing to pay for it.

 

Higher wage costs will encourage companies to invest to cut their wage costs, which will make them more efficient in the long run.

I don't agree with that, whilst it is a nice thought that people would pay more for products, to make a fairer society, rarely do they pay their money for it. You only have to look at all the book shops closing because Amazon sells cheaper, Or village or town centre shops closing because a cheaper supermarket opening nearby.  

[MakemineVanilla]

 

Increasing the minimum wage definitely seems like a fairer system of redistribution than benefits because it benefits everyone on a low wage, not just the 'hard-working families' ie victims of their own fecundity.

 

Obviously, higher wage costs will be passed on, which amounts to a regressive tax, but from opinions on here, people seem willing to pay for it.

 

Higher wage costs will encourage companies to invest to cut their wage costs, which will make them more efficient in the long run.

I don't agree with that, whilst it is a nice thought that people would pay more for products, to make a fairer society, rarely do they pay their money for it. You only have to look at all the book shops closing because Amazon sells cheaper, Or village or town centre shops closing because a cheaper supermarket opening nearby.  

 

 

If you are saying that people tend to say one thing but do the opposite when they are in the marketplace, I wouldn't disagree.

[TrentVilla]

Were currently in a situation where tax payers are subsidising a low wage economy. Businesses reap the profits and the rest of us are paying to keep our own wages down. Its absolutely mental, we're paying ourselves out of a pay rise!People really should wake up and realise this.

As I previously posted I don't think it's that simple.

[Xann]

 

This was in my inbox this morning.

[Eames]

I like that. Stolen for social media. 

[colhint]

It appears to be rubbish though. On checking on ONS the muslim population is only about 3%

 

and benefit fraud they can get within about 750,000  but immigration they can only get within 2,500,000. 

 

Not disputing the opinion side of it though

[ender4]

It appears to be rubbish though. On checking on ONS the muslim population is only about 3%

 

and benefit fraud they can get within about 750,000  but immigration they can only get within 2,500,000. 

 

Not disputing the opinion side of it though

 

 

4.8% muslim population in UK, 5.0% for England in pretty much all the sources online (through google)

[colhint]

ok must have misread it

[HanoiVillan]

That rocket polisher Robinson is from Macclesfield. You really shouldn't allow to peddle such biased views as Chief Political Editor of the BBC.

 

Freezing benefits for 3 years saving £3.2billion if Tories get back into power.

 

good or bad? popular with the electorate?

 

For someone with my politics, obviously bad, but YMMV. The second question will be interesting - I suspect the measure will poll brilliantly, but won't actually win them many votes, because it's mainly a core vote strategy. Most people in poverty in Britain are in work, and the general move to extremely low pay and low job security means this is a direct assault on those in-work poor. This group have already been resisting returning to the Tories, confounding pollsters who expected to see economic growth reflected in better government figures in the opinion polls. This is probably because GDP figures don't make much difference if your own personal finances aren't improving. 

 

I really like your posts Hanoi. You should do more of them.

 

That's a really nice thing to say, thank you very much! 

[chrisp65]

that figure on immigration looks suspect, I guess they are only counting back 1 or 2 generations

 

I'd guess that the majority of us have an immigrant background if we care to delve in

 

fish n chips is foreign, apparently. I learnt today that fried fish was introduced by the jewish community around 1860, chips were invented by the belgians

bloody jews and europeans fiddling with our food, they'll be telling us curry isn't even ours next

[HanoiVillan]

These figures are now a couple of years old, but they won't have changed much:

 

 

Benefit fraud has remained steady at around 1% of the total benefits bill for years. You'll notice that unclaimed benefits - ie, benefits that people are perfectly entitled to but don't receive either because they don't claim or because of administrative error - are worth more than 6 times that amount, although that number is, as the article makes clear, a massive lowball estimate. 

 

There are benefit scroungers. They do exist. They're just utterly, utterly insignificant in terms of macroeconomic impact. Helping to create jobs for people who are unemployed and looking for work would have a benefit for the exchequer far far far far far far greater than cracking down on 'scroungers'. 

Edited September 30, 2014 by HanoiVillan

[krisagg75]

the unclaimed benefits get me.my brothers dad-in-law had a stroke 4 yrs ago when he was 65.he'd been paying in for 50 years.he only found out by chance recently that he's entitled to certain benefits.they never told him but he met someone who suggested he apply and see if he was entitled to any.so they admitted he was and gave him 2 months back pay even though he should've had it 4 yrs ago.

[Awol]

fish n chips is foreign, apparently. I learnt today that fried fish was introduced by the jewish community around 1860, chips were invented by the belgians

bloody jews and europeans fiddling with our food, they'll be telling us curry isn't even ours next

You're one of those 'radiofourophiles', aren't you?

Dangerous folk.

[chrisp65]

yep

 

used to be radio 5, now I just can't stand it

 

4 all the way.....and I suspect that means that you too might be?

 

the 'comedy' show on at the moment is some bloke doing impersonations, you know it's not very good when he has to name each of his characters and he's doing the likes of Terry Wogan and Arnie Scwarzenegger

[Awol]

 

4 all the way.....and I suspect that means that you too might be?

 

A little piece of home I can't resist, except for the comedy... which is reminiscent of

guy.

 

[snowychap]

Some detail (according to the Beeb) of May's speech and commentary on it:

 

...

At the moment, organisations can only be banned if there is evidence of links to terrorism.

Under the Tories' new proposals, groups that cannot currently be proscribed could be subject to banning orders should ministers "reasonably believe" that they intend to incite religious or racial hatred, to threaten democracy or if there is a pressing need to protect the public from harm, either from a risk of violence, public disorder, harassment or other criminal acts.

The granting of a ban, which would be subject to immediate review by the High Court, would make membership or funding of the organisation concerned a criminal offence.

 

Broadcasting ban

 

The police would also be given new powers to apply to a court to impose extreme disruption orders on individuals, using the same criteria.

This could result in those targeted being stopped from taking part in public protests, from being present at all in certain public locations, from associating with named people, from using of conventional broadcast media and from "obtaining any position of authority in an institution where they would have influence over vulnerable individuals or children".

Breach of the restrictions - which would be time limited - would be a criminal offence.

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he did not think some of the measures were sufficiently tough, and called on Mrs May to reintroduce powers to relocate terror suspects to other parts of the country.

Conservative MP Dominic Raab told BBC News there was already a "very wide criminal basis" to prosecute extremist groups.

"I think you need to be very wary about criminalising thoughts and views", he said.

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve said there was a risk new measures could "simply fuel resentment".

He told BBC Radio 4's The World at One: "If there is to be any restriction on the freedom of expression outside the criminal law - we have to tread very carefully."

...

So, the Home Sec. could proscribe any old group as 'threatening to democracy' or a group that needs to be proscribed to 'protect the public from public disorder' and membership of that group would then become a criminal offence.

Welcome to the tory vision of future britain: a capitalist GDR (or a mini China if they could wangle it).

Edited October 1, 2014 by snowychap

[MakemineVanilla]

May's speech was just a blatant piece of crass propaganda.

 

On the day Britain started hitting IS targets she needed to re-establish the bogus assertion that Muslims travelling abroad to fight for Islam, are not prompted by Western aggression, as they see it, but by radicalisation.

 

By making her speech and promises of legislation, which she knows will not get through parliament, she successfully steered the narrative away from discussions about the affect of foreign policy.

 

It seems to have worked.

[ender4]

as thing currently stand, i think i will vote Lib Dems in the general election.

 

I am a very floaty voter though, so my mind may change many times between now & May. 

 

Also my family vote as i recommend, so i effectively get 4-5 votes    

[TrentVilla]

No offence intended, but given how they've conducted themselves since the last election I find it staggering to imagine anyone voting for the Lib Dem's in the next general election.