villaajax Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 Ah, the living wage. Labour will be offering that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 Ah, the living wage. Labour will be offering that too. Without giving figures. It looks nice but stinks of political bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 Ah, the living wage. Labour will be offering that too. Without giving figures. It looks nice but stinks of political bollocks. And what makes the Greens different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 They've put figures on it. They sound more decisive, like it's a policy they really believe in, rather than it being a jam tomorrow give us your vote. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 The experienced parties aren't going to set out their policies quite this far from an election though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) I don't like Labour but what exactly makes the Greens any different here? They're a political party with their own ambitions just like Labour. What makes people think that parties like Greens and UKIP will somehow act different if they get into Westminster? Edited May 26, 2014 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 The thing is mantis no-one will know unless they come into power so be difficult to comment on that We know both tories and labour are shite and lib dems are even worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 Green are nice and fluffy. UKIP are the party of the people. Look at Farage here drinking a beer Down to earth, man of the people. Boo! Hiss! Just photo opportunities! Completely different. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) The implementation of a minimum wage that's a living wage. They estimate it at £8.10 I think. That would effectively be a pay rise for a hell of a lot of people. The poverty level is considered to be anything below 60% of median earning (around £26k). £26k x 60% is £15600 divided by 52, divided by 37 hours is around £8 an hour. So no full-time worker earns below the poverty line. It would be interesting to see how much that would cost the NHS. Edited May 26, 2014 by MakemineVanilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 The most crippling costs the NHS face are the PFI contracts. That's new labour and the conservatives putting our money into the pockets of profiteers. That needs to stop, I'd rather extra money went into the pockets of the cleaners and nurses. Big corporations will need to start paying tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 The most crippling costs the NHS face are the PFI contracts. That's new labour and the conservatives putting our money into the pockets of profiteers. That needs to stop, I'd rather extra money went into the pockets of the cleaners and nurses. Big corporations will need to start paying tax. It certainly represents a substantial pay rise for the lower-paid. A classroom assistant gets around £12k a year so paying them £15k amounts to a 25% rise. Obviously, teachers would have to co-operate and not complain about the erosion of differential, which seems unlikely. A new teacher gets £21k outside London - would they be happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post bickster Posted May 26, 2014 Author Moderator Popular Post Share Posted May 26, 2014 The experienced parties aren't going to set out their policies quite this far from an election though.And maybe you have ask yourself why that is? Its because they treat politics like its a game, politics should be about conviction not hedging your bets and keeping your powder dry, those are the actions of people who want to get elected because they want to be elected, not because they want to put their beliefs into practice.Shitehawks like Labour, LibDem and Tory politicians deserve none of our respect purely because of their attitudes to the people. They all want to be elected for the wrong reasons and the fact that people accept that and even offer it as a defence of said parties shows what a mess this country's politics is in 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 The most crippling costs the NHS face are the PFI contracts. That's new labour and the conservatives putting our money into the pockets of profiteers. That needs to stop, I'd rather extra money went into the pockets of the cleaners and nurses. Big corporations will need to start paying tax. It certainly represents a substantial pay rise for the lower-paid. A classroom assistant gets around £12k a year so paying them £15k amounts to a 25% rise. Obviously, teachers would have to co-operate and not complain about the erosion of differential, which seems unlikely. A new teacher gets £21k outside London - would they be happy?I cant possibly answer what other people think. I would be happy to see my colleagues lifted out of poverty. It wouldn't make a difference to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 I may be way off here, but if poverty is seen as 60% of the average wage.....is lifting the minimum wage actually going to theoretically 'solve' poverty or simply push the median higher? I'm not suggesting we keep people poor. But whilst the formula for poverty is ok for now, if we actually genuinely tried to abolish it using that formula could that ever actually be done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 26, 2014 Author Moderator Share Posted May 26, 2014 I think the 60% isn't such the way of removing poverty but the current tool to be used to reduce it. These things are always redefine able at a later point. You get to that point and reassess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 It's got to relate to utility prices, average rent, food, inflation, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 26, 2014 Author Moderator Share Posted May 26, 2014 It's got to relate to utility prices, average rent, food, inflation, etc.That process comes later imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 I may be way off here, but if poverty is seen as 60% of the average wage.....is lifting the minimum wage actually going to theoretically 'solve' poverty or simply push the median higher? I'm not suggesting we keep people poor. But whilst the formula for poverty is ok for now, if we actually genuinely tried to abolish it using that formula could that ever actually be done? You are correct. The whole notion of 'relative' poverty does seem like madness because someone could be transformed from being in poverty not by increasing their income but by cutting other people's. It could possibly bring about the ridiculous situation where a person in one country could be deemed to be living in poverty but a person in a more equal country but actually materially worse off, would be deemed not to be in poverty. The fact that 'relative' poverty tends to be used so that people assume the speaker/author means 'absolute' poverty always seems dishonest. I sometimes think the whole concept of relative poverty was the invention of the poverty lobby industry to ensure they are never out of a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 26, 2014 Author Moderator Share Posted May 26, 2014 yes but its a tool not a measure 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 I sometimes think the whole concept of relative poverty was the invention of the poverty lobby industry to ensure they are never out of a job. They weren't around in 1776, though, were they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts