|
|
Post by eor on Nov 13, 2024 23:20:29 GMT
... Meanwhile you are still ok with what is happening to some of the the lower paid… Very okay, I assume you are aswell www.bbc.com/news/business-69451108"The wages of three and a half million low-paid workers will increase by more than expected in April 2025. The government has confirmed the National Living Wage paid to over-21s will go up by 6.7% while the National Minimum Wage for 18 to 20-year-olds will see a 16% increase. Separately, almost half a million workers benefit from a higher hourly rate paid voluntarily by some UK businesses called the Real Living Wage, which is also going up" Of course tories and some others on the right will claim it will mean less jobs,exactly as they did when the minimum wage was first introduced, which was found to be bollocx Certainly several of my nephews and nieces in low paid jobs appreciate it and of course there is the rachet effect for those on slightly higher wages I remember some saying the benefits of Brexit would be higher wages to attract people to work, except of course when Labour increases wages for the low paid it suddenly becomes unaffordable As to a hypothetical possibility that NIC increases may at sometime possibly depress wages in the future, most people on low wages would choose the legal certainty of wage increase Labour has given them I appreciate you're wading valiantly through a ton of chaff on various subjects at the moment, but for what it's worth I'm not talking about hypothetical possibilities that may at sometime possibly happen, I'm working numbers at a company that cannot just magic up the extra ten million quid that Reeves has levied on next year's already set budget. Of course a significant increase in the Minimum Wage had already been costed into that budget, but 4.3% became 6.7%, and then what was costed as an expected 2% onto ERs NI became this seemingly politically clever but actually hugely regressive threshold thing and so the cost of the budgeted NI increase more than doubled as a result. And that's in a business with relatively few part-timers, it'll be significantly worse in many other places! The immediate, actual, reality in businesses that between them are employing many millions of people will be that everyone who isn't increased by the NMW uplift and its direct knock-ons will see a real terms pay cut in 2025, and more than likely that a significant number of jobs will disappear altogether. That's not based on some ideological misunderstanding of how minimum wages operate, that is just based on the reality that you can't ask low-margin businesses to conjour up an extra 4-7% of their salary costs in taxes at a few months' notice without there being immediate real impacts on pay and on jobs. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 13, 2024 23:29:52 GMT
Almost half of UK farms are under 100 acres. Quite a difficult industry to get into as a new starter. Hopefully the Labour policies will rejuvinate UK farming away from consolidation and super farms. More likely to do the opposite if it forces small farmers to sell up. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 13, 2024 23:36:38 GMT
Averages can be really helpful, or really really not.
Talking about the average cost of a public school place is irrelevant when the topic is how many people will be priced out of affording one - the average will firstly be distorted by the cost of boarding places, but even after that the average still isn't relevant, it's the people paying for the cheapest viable option because they think it's much better than their state school alternatives that could be priced out by the tax changes, not the ones in the middle of the price range.
Likewise, the average value of a farm is irrelevant to whether the IHT change is good or bad - it's not the average farm that's going to become unviable and thus gobbled up by the conglomerates if 10-20% of the land has to be sold to meet the IHT bill, it's the smaller ones. What matters is how many of those there are and what proportion of the market they occupy.
|
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 13, 2024 23:46:06 GMT
There are credible allegations of trafficking for sexual purposes against congressman Matt Gaetz. So of course Trump nominates Matt Gaetz as attorney general! The lunatics are taking over the asylum. Gaetz is so monumentally unqualified and widely despised across party lines that his nomination may be rejected even by a Republican dominated senate. It may indeed be rejected - or, if the Senate are prepared to play the "not exactly long" game, it'll move to a case of as soon as he falls out with Trump he gets arbitrarily fired and has to go away. Either way, better than having the colossal twat still in the House and making the Speaker elections take eleven years each. |
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Nov 13, 2024 23:48:07 GMT
Looking at Trumps appointments, this is going to be a morbidly fascinating experiment in governing a modern state. Very dangerous times ahead I fear. Trump falls out with nearly everybody, it will be interesting to see how long people stay in post. You wouldn't call this lot a Team would you?.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 13, 2024 23:59:07 GMT
Averages can be really helpful, or really really not. Talking about the average cost of a public school place is irrelevant when the topic is how many people will be priced out of affording one - the average will firstly be distorted by the cost of boarding places, but even after that the average still isn't relevant, it's the people paying for the cheapest viable option because they think it's much better than their state school alternatives that could be priced out by the tax changes, not the ones in the middle of the price range. Likewise, the average value of a farm is irrelevant to whether the IHT change is good or bad - it's not the average farm that's going to become unviable and thus gobbled up by the conglomerates if 10-20% of the land has to be sold to meet the IHT bill, it's the smaller ones. What matters is how many of those there are and what proportion of the market they occupy. 'Average' usually means 'mean'. The mode or median would be more useful measures in the cases you describe. |
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on Nov 14, 2024 0:03:37 GMT
... Meanwhile you are still ok with what is happening to some of the the lower paid… Very okay, I assume you are aswell www.bbc.com/news/business-69451108"The wages of three and a half million low-paid workers will increase by more than expected in April 2025. The government has confirmed the National Living Wage paid to over-21s will go up by 6.7% while the National Minimum Wage for 18 to 20-year-olds will see a 16% increase. Separately, almost half a million workers benefit from a higher hourly rate paid voluntarily by some UK businesses called the Real Living Wage, which is also going up" Of course tories and some others on the right will claim it will mean less jobs,exactly as they did when the minimum wage was first introduced, which was found to be bollocx Certainly several of my nephews and nieces in low paid jobs appreciate it and of course there is the rachet effect for those on slightly higher wages I remember some saying the benefits of Brexit would be higher wages to attract people to work, except of course when Labour increases wages for the low paid it suddenly becomes unaffordable As to a hypothetical possibility that NIC increases may at sometime possibly depress wages in the future, most people on low wages would choose the legal certainty of wage increase Labour has given them Good to hear but the National Living Wage is a piece of Osborne Nuspeak. The "National Living Wage" is not a living wage. The Real Living Wage is not at a national level but is calculated as a genuine minimum to live respectably on.. There is a higher living wage in London to reflect higher cost of living. An honest government will abolish misnaming the minimum wage a living wage. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 14, 2024 0:05:57 GMT
Averages can be really helpful, or really really not. Talking about the average cost of a public school place is irrelevant when the topic is how many people will be priced out of affording one - the average will firstly be distorted by the cost of boarding places, but even after that the average still isn't relevant, it's the people paying for the cheapest viable option because they think it's much better than their state school alternatives that could be priced out by the tax changes, not the ones in the middle of the price range. Likewise, the average value of a farm is irrelevant to whether the IHT change is good or bad - it's not the average farm that's going to become unviable and thus gobbled up by the conglomerates if 10-20% of the land has to be sold to meet the IHT bill, it's the smaller ones. What matters is how many of those there are and what proportion of the market they occupy. how does it work with the more average-sized farms over time? Do they lose a chunk each time they get handed on until they too eventually get gobbled up? Or is there something to stop that happening? |
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on Nov 14, 2024 0:22:42 GMT
Very okay, I assume you are aswell www.bbc.com/news/business-69451108"The wages of three and a half million low-paid workers will increase by more than expected in April 2025. The government has confirmed the National Living Wage paid to over-21s will go up by 6.7% while the National Minimum Wage for 18 to 20-year-olds will see a 16% increase. Separately, almost half a million workers benefit from a higher hourly rate paid voluntarily by some UK businesses called the Real Living Wage, which is also going up" Of course tories and some others on the right will claim it will mean less jobs,exactly as they did when the minimum wage was first introduced, which was found to be bollocx Certainly several of my nephews and nieces in low paid jobs appreciate it and of course there is the rachet effect for those on slightly higher wages I remember some saying the benefits of Brexit would be higher wages to attract people to work, except of course when Labour increases wages for the low paid it suddenly becomes unaffordable As to a hypothetical possibility that NIC increases may at sometime possibly depress wages in the future, most people on low wages would choose the legal certainty of wage increase Labour has given them I appreciate you're wading valiantly through a ton of chaff on various subjects at the moment, but for what it's worth I'm not talking about hypothetical possibilities that may at sometime possibly happen, I'm working numbers at a company that cannot just magic up the extra ten million quid that Reeves has levied on next year's already set budget. Of course a significant increase in the Minimum Wage had already been costed into that budget, but 4.3% became 6.7%, and then what was costed as an expected 2% onto ERs NI became this seemingly politically clever but actually hugely regressive threshold thing and so the cost of the budgeted NI increase more than doubled as a result. And that's in a business with relatively few part-timers, it'll be significantly worse in many other places! The immediate, actual, reality in businesses that between them are employing many millions of people will be that everyone who isn't increased by the NMW uplift and its direct knock-ons will see a real terms pay cut in 2025, and more than likely that a significant number of jobs will disappear altogether. That's not based on some ideological misunderstanding of how minimum wages operate, that is just based on the reality that you can't ask low-margin businesses to conjour up an extra 4-7% of their salary costs in taxes at a few months' notice without there being immediate real impacts on pay and on jobs. Yes eor any increase in cost of employment is at the margins a threat to employment. The very fact of an introduction of a minimum wage was going to result in mass unemployment, as I recall. As did (in a more parochial way) the extension of ULEZ and multiple changes in regulation. History shows this does not happen in a widespread way. Of course, some employers will not have the capacity to successfully adapt, but we have a pluralist version of capitalism. If one business can't make it work there will be plenty of others who are attracted by the extra income amongst a large section of the population who have a high propensity to spend. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 14, 2024 1:13:26 GMT
neilj I appreciate you're wading valiantly through a ton of chaff on various subjects at the moment, but for what it's worth I'm not talking about hypothetical possibilities that may at sometime possibly happen, I'm working numbers at a company that cannot just magic up the extra ten million quid that Reeves has levied on next year's already set budget. Of course a significant increase in the Minimum Wage had already been costed into that budget, but 4.3% became 6.7%, and then what was costed as an expected 2% onto ERs NI became this seemingly politically clever but actually hugely regressive threshold thing and so the cost of the budgeted NI increase more than doubled as a result. And that's in a business with relatively few part-timers, it'll be significantly worse in many other places! The immediate, actual, reality in businesses that between them are employing many millions of people will be that everyone who isn't increased by the NMW uplift and its direct knock-ons will see a real terms pay cut in 2025, and more than likely that a significant number of jobs will disappear altogether. That's not based on some ideological misunderstanding of how minimum wages operate, that is just based on the reality that you can't ask low-margin businesses to conjour up an extra 4-7% of their salary costs in taxes at a few months' notice without there being immediate real impacts on pay and on jobs. Yes eor any increase in cost of employment is at the margins a threat to employment. The very fact of an introduction of a minimum wage was going to result in mass unemployment, as I recall. As did (in a more parochial way) the extension of ULEZ and multiple changes in regulation. History shows this does not happen in a widespread way. Of course, some employers will not have the capacity to successfully adapt, but we have a pluralist version of capitalism. If one business can't make it work there will be plenty of others who are attracted by the extra income amongst a large section of the population who have a high propensity to spend. That feels to me like an incredibly complacent way to wave away a massive regressive tax rise, on the basis that "hey, people have said other tax rises would cost jobs and it was fine then!". For a significant number of companies, the sudden extra money that the government have chosen to immediately levy on low-paid jobs simply doesn't exist. So for those companies the extra tax will be paid from prices rises or job reductions or real terms pay cuts. That is the reality of what what is happening. Maybe the scale of the impact will be politically problematic for the government or maybe it won't be, I don't know. But it seems perfectly valid to question why they're disproportionately taxing the lowest paid jobs or why they're okay with the inevitable consequences of doing that. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Nov 14, 2024 1:34:16 GMT
Last post: www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4n30HG-eYQI encourage those who bridle at any sources other than those they approve, to watch this. It's only 7 minutes and it might give you some insight into a different mindset. I'm not saying I agree with everything he says myself, but it is important to try to understand other viewpoints. You can attack and mock it all you like, but a lot of people do think like that and the left need to understand that. |
|
|
|
Post by moby on Nov 14, 2024 6:34:27 GMT
Averages can be really helpful, or really really not. Talking about the average cost of a public school place is irrelevant when the topic is how many people will be priced out of affording one - the average will firstly be distorted by the cost of boarding places, but even after that the average still isn't relevant, it's the people paying for the cheapest viable option because they think it's much better than their state school alternatives that could be priced out by the tax changes, not the ones in the middle of the price range. Likewise, the average value of a farm is irrelevant to whether the IHT change is good or bad - it's not the average farm that's going to become unviable and thus gobbled up by the conglomerates if 10-20% of the land has to be sold to meet the IHT bill, it's the smaller ones. What matters is how many of those there are and what proportion of the market they occupy. ...but the average cost of a public school place when compared with the average salary tells me where we should be concentrating our resources and it's not in giving VAT exemption to public schools imo. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 14, 2024 6:41:52 GMT
Why not - at least - return to the 60% top rate of Income Tax we experienced under Thatcher 1979 - 1988? Probably not, mostly because income tax n the rich isnt the problem and would not raise much. The problem is that the rich usually have the choice insted of having income, to receive capital gains, which is taxed at a much lower rate than income. The problem to address then is to raise capital taxes, not income taxes. Also in particular, there is a big problem of the immensely wealthy not being taxed. This is where the untapped money is. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 14, 2024 6:47:19 GMT
]Yeah, it’s currently more than I can get my head around. A particular reason I am thinking about it though, is the desirability of keeping an asset under your own or your family’s control, to make the best of it for others. Because when I set up or expanded recording studios in education, it could get handed over to God knows who. You put all that work in, and then it can be a bit of a lottery what happens. Also, I couldn’t use the studio to get the most out of it because I didn’t have enough control. You couldn’t do nighttime sessions for example. I dont really understand why you think thats relevant to farming? Your studio space could have been transformed by the college into space for something else, your equipment repurposed or sold off. But land is land. There is little you can do with it except grow stuff. If you dont try it will still grow stuff all by itself, and its almost guaranteed any new owner will prefer to use it for profitable growing than wild. Unless it gets used as a national park or something, but then that a matter of national policy anyway. Of course, we do need greater rights to roam on private land. It makes no sense one person should be able to monopolise such a national natural resource. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 14, 2024 6:55:16 GMT
Turk I appreciate your farming connections and I'm not a farmer, however I did live on one as a kid and worked on it part time s o I'm not entirely unfamiliar with farming life. The average size UK family farm is around 260 acres a 600 acre farm is by English standards really big it would cost around £7 million to purchase and while of course it varies a return on such a sizable farm is likely to be around £200,000 a year not £80,000 "In 2021/22, the average Farm Business Income (FBI) across all UK farm types, at current prices, was £72,000 compared to £46,500 in 2020/21." gov.uk So that would be ALL types including the people with just ten acres? I remember that ten or twenty years ago the rules for obtaining farm subsidy were changed so that small land holdings would be eligible, the minimum field size now seems to be 0.1 hectares. Before it was maybe 5 acres? The result of this was the subsidy agency was swamped by people making claims for holdings below the former limit which is was unable to process in time for the changes coming into effect. I conclude from this that the definition of all farm types could include an awful lot of very tiny holdings with very low declared incomes. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 14, 2024 7:04:00 GMT
The penny starting to drop here in a couple of letters to the Guardian. Note that the Harris referred to is John Harris, who wrote an article which generated these responses - www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/13/why-the-left-is-losing-respect-and-electionsIt's almost as if Harris was reading UKPR2. He's right. The 'left' has majored on identity based prigishness towards those who don't use the correct language or show visibly the correct emotions. Most people across the political spectrum are pretty laid back about social identity issues, with some major exceptions, but its far too common for those with some mild sentiments to be labeled alongside the real offenders, even though the opinions are private and don't lead to any real world negative consequences. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 14, 2024 7:04:04 GMT
Almost half of UK farms are under 100 acres. Quite a difficult industry to get into as a new starter. Hopefully the Labour policies will rejuvinate UK farming away from consolidation and super farms. I dont see why? Large farms are more efficient, not unrelated to their being accused of being worse environmentally, and so more profitable. So big agri business likes big farms. Small farms are often the result of local geography, hills, valleys, bad soil, which make them unviable for intensive agriculture. Or create pockets of workable land amongst poorer land. Significant amounts of land do seem to be owned as investments, which does create opportunities for tenant farmers, who dont actually own the asset but just farm it. There are likely problems with this model about security of tenure, either too weak to feel invested in the land you are farming, or too strong so that owners will not rent land they wont be able to recover. |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 14, 2024 7:16:11 GMT
Quite a difficult industry to get into as a new starter. Hopefully the Labour policies will rejuvinate UK farming away from consolidation and super farms. More likely to do the opposite if it forces small farmers to sell up. Depends what you call small, and yet to really see what the post CAP incentives offer the sector. Could, note I said could, be good. Across the water, official confirmation that the Republicans now control the three arms of Federal Government. " Republicans secure House majority in yet another blow to Democrats Party has won 218 seats in lower chamber after Democrats unsuccessfully campaigned on need to curtail ‘dysfunction’" Source: Guardian |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 14, 2024 7:21:02 GMT
So the sexual predator president elect picks sexual predator Matt Gaetz as his nomination for Attorney General .Gaetz then promptly resigns as a congressman effective immediately , two days before the house ethics committee was due to report on the allegations of his sexual impropriety including allegations of rape. As Gaetz no longer is a congressman the committee has no ability to publish the results of their investigation. The rapist old boy club definitely working well. The clown car administration filling up fast. youtu.be/-UJfAdv613E?si=QLRJjJXX1rJ6UYw7 |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 14, 2024 7:24:31 GMT
colin"In 2021/22, the average Farm Business Income (FBI) across all UK farm types, at current prices, was £72,000 compared to £46,500 in 2020/21." gov.uk Hi Colin that may well be accurate however Turk referenced a farm around three times the average size then quoted the average farm income. I was seeking to clarify this as it gave a misleading view of farm income.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 14, 2024 7:55:35 GMT
Another pick for the clown car Tulsi Gabbard, a veteran and former democrat turned maga republican and fox news host as director of national intelligence.
Slight problem with this Gabbard isn't just incredibly pro war criminal Putin but there's credible evidence she's actually a Russian agent (not in the spy sense but in the advocacy of a foreign power).
Gabbard routinely echoes verbatim propaganda releases from the Kremlin has expressed admiration of Putin and has apparently been " groomed" by Russian security services since 2019 and blamed Ukraine for Russia invasion.
Gabbard of course in common with other lunatic picks by the lunatic has no qualification for her proposed post or any relevant experience of the intelligence services .
The new staff at the asylum looking bat shit crazy!
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,390
|
Post by neilj on Nov 14, 2024 8:01:05 GMT
Looking at the batshit crazy appointments by Trump I predict 2 things
1. Most of them won't be in their roles in four years time, either having upset Trump or failed to deliver on the impossible
2. After Trump's Presidency there will be legal consequences for Trump and those he appointed
|
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 14, 2024 8:01:56 GMT
Quite a difficult industry to get into as a new starter. Hopefully the Labour policies will rejuvinate UK farming away from consolidation and super farms. I dont see why? Large farms are more efficient, not unrelated to their being accused of being worse environmentally, and so more profitable. So big agri business likes big farms. Small farms are often the result of local geography, hills, valleys, bad soil, which make them unviable for intensive agriculture. Or create pockets of workable land amongst poorer land. Significant amounts of land do seem to be owned as investments, which does create opportunities for tenant farmers, who dont actually own the asset but just farm it. There are likely problems with this model about security of tenure, either too weak to feel invested in the land you are farming, or too strong so that owners will not rent land they wont be able to recover. Look, my belief is that farming subsidies should focus on smaller scale, dare I say it "traditional" nature farming methods. We only need to look at the devastating effects of intensive farming on our once beautiful rivers to see where large scale max margin farming ends up. It's a societal choice. Disincentives to the large scale model should be part of that, something the EU and the CAP absolutely failed to do with subsidies even going to people who hadn't farmed for decades (as with CFP and fishermen). |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 14, 2024 8:14:12 GMT
neilj With a christofascist controlled supreme court that isn't going to disappear in '28 the chance of justice is close to zero. The rapist may dispense with the current batch of loons but to expect the replacements that hop out of the loony pond to be any better is shall we say optimistic. Hopefully we will see dementia do for the rapist then we just have thoroughly disagreeable but sane J D Vance instead.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 14, 2024 8:15:37 GMT
Yes, I wasn’t complaining about those who might well benefit. We shall see what happens to others. I’m not sure how it all pans out. Even if it doesn’t result in a loss of jobs overall, it might hit particular sectors harder, like hospitality? Hopefully you are right… Heres the thing. There is a massive wave of opposition to immigration. Not so much in the population as a whole, but certainly enough active voters to swing election results. Maybe enough to make Farage the majority winner in parliament. as numbers of immigrants rise, and as this has received more publicity, so opposition to unlimited immigration has grown and will continue to do so. Not only does immigration bring its own problems, because those new people get to share all the existing national resources like homes, schools, benefits and wages, it is forseeable that immigration of the right sort of people (ie well educated and skilled or already wealthy) is going to dry up and be replaced only with desperate refugees, if at all. Its not a long term solution to encourage immigration to increase GDP. Problem is, the Uk has relied upon exactly this for 20-30 years.
What we need to do is increase productivity. Not more workers, more product per worker. We have been terrible at doing this, probably because we have concentrated on a plentiful supply of cheap labour from immigrants. To make this change industries have to be incentivised by making labour more expenive. And the government has done exactly this, increasing mnimum wage so workers get more, and increasing employers NI, so the government gets more too. Losing jobs in this process isnt a bad thing, its a good thing. We need to drive out low wage work.
And in case people have conveniently forgotten, the bank of England recently increased interest rates, because it said it needed to draw money out of the economy. Stop employers hiring too many people, because there is a worker shortage. This was acclaimed as good news despite making everyone pay more on their mortgages and therefore effectively CUTTING their wages. So heres a plan which may also help to reduce the number of employees, but also helps push up wages to try to bring closer the wage inequality from least to best paid.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,390
|
Post by neilj on Nov 14, 2024 8:19:31 GMT
While the Guardian quitting Musk's twitter may have been a body blow, this is surely the coup de grâce 😀 www.thelondoneconomic.com/lifestyle/clifton-suspension-bridge-quits-elon-musks-x-385770/"Clifton Suspension Bridge quits Elon Musk’s X The much-loved Bristol bridge said a rise in "inappropriate content" and a "decrease in meaningful engagement" were behind its decision to quit the platform" Meanwhile blusky has now over 15 million users |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 14, 2024 8:22:36 GMT
]Yeah, it’s currently more than I can get my head around. A particular reason I am thinking about it though, is the desirability of keeping an asset under your own or your family’s control, to make the best of it for others. Because when I set up or expanded recording studios in education, it could get handed over to God knows who. You put all that work in, and then it can be a bit of a lottery what happens. Also, I couldn’t use the studio to get the most out of it because I didn’t have enough control. You couldn’t do nighttime sessions for example. I dont really understand why you think thats relevant to farming? Your studio space could have been transformed by the college into space for something else, your equipment repurposed or sold off. But land is land. There is little you can do with it except grow stuff. If you dont try it will still grow stuff all by itself, and its almost guaranteed any new owner will prefer to use it for profitable growing than wild. Unless it gets used as a national park or something, but then that a matter of national policy anyway. Of course, we do need greater rights to roam on private land. It makes no sense one person should be able to monopolise such a national natural resource. Yes well in that instance I am not talking about farming. (Although maybe if talking about farming, maybe a farmer might indeed be concerned about the use to which the land is put etc.) But I’m not sure how many who are so keen to see productive assets possibly built up over a lifetime and more having to be sold off have actually built up productive facilities like that themselves. Be interesting to know... |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 14, 2024 8:26:12 GMT
David Gauke, Conservative, was just asked why the government he was part of didnt build more prisons when they were increasing sentences and the space crisis was wholly predictable. He waffled for a couple of minutes not answering.
Was asked whether it was a mistake to just recently release 3000 prisoners. Conceded there was no alternative to this.
Gauke of course lost the tory whip and then his seat after opposing Boris Johnson and was one of the rebels seeking an alternative consensus outcome for Brexit. In the subsequent election he came second to the new conservative as an independant. He has since rejoined the conservtive party but was also asked by Labour to lead an independant review into prison policy.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 14, 2024 8:31:53 GMT
Yes, I wasn’t complaining about those who might well benefit. We shall see what happens to others. I’m not sure how it all pans out. Even if it doesn’t result in a loss of jobs overall, it might hit particular sectors harder, like hospitality? Hopefully you are right… Heres the thing. There is a massive wave of opposition to immigration. Not so much in the population as a whole, but certainly enough active voters to swing election results. Maybe enough to make Farage the majority winner in parliament. as numbers of immigrants rise, and as this has received more publicity, so opposition to unlimited immigration has grown and will continue to do so. Not only does immigration bring its own problems, because those new people get to share all the existing national resources like homes, schools, benefits and wages, it is forseeable that immigration of the right sort of people (ie well educated and skilled or already wealthy) is going to dry up and be replaced only with desperate refugees, if at all. Its not a long term solution to encourage immigration to increase GDP. Problem is, the Uk has relied upon exactly this for 20-30 years.
What we need to do is increase productivity. Not more workers, more product per worker. We have been terrible at doing this, probably because we have concentrated on a plentiful supply of cheap labour from immigrants. To make this change industries have to be incentivised by making labour more expenive. And the government has done exactly this, increasing mnimum wage so workers get more, and increasing employers NI, so the government gets more too. Losing jobs in this process isnt a bad thing, its a good thing. We need to drive out low wage work.
And in case people have conveniently forgotten, the bank of England recently increased interest rates, because it said it needed to draw money out of the economy. Stop employers hiring too many people, because there is a worker shortage. This was acclaimed as good news despite making everyone pay more on their mortgages and therefore effectively CUTTING their wages. So heres a plan which may also help to reduce the number of employees, but also helps push up wages to try to bring closer the wage inequality from least to best paid.
Am not averse to increasing wages Danny, as you may know. But at issue is not so much increasing the minimum wage, but measures that may increase other costs and hence create a pressure to lower wages as well as ditch some jobs. And even if we accept the idea of improving productivity overall, some sectors may still get hammered, like hospitality which may not so easily be improved by automation. Or maybe you might want to give businesses a bit more time to adjust, by introducing a change a bit more gradually. As an aside, my preferred approach to rising wages would be by creating better jobs, which would naturally increase wages as well as job security, better conditions et cetera. To some extent the minimum wage is a sticking plaster to represent poor employment policy, a consequence of being too right-wing and favouring capital too much. Also, another way of increasing wages without making it difficult for business, is to reduce other costs whether it’s business rates or energy or indeed property prices etc., and creating better jobs could also involve creating ones that are more productive. Good morning btw (It’s quite a good idea to create better jobs to keep business from trying to drive down wages even if they secure lower other costs) |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on Nov 14, 2024 8:44:12 GMT
alec I'm sure the democrats would have loved to have focussed on bread and butter issues in this election. The only reason 'identity politics' played as much of a role as it did was because there was a moral imperative to counter the extremist, dangerous rhetoric from the other side threatening established rights. If they'd been up against, Mitt Romney say, that wouldn't have been necessary. It was, as it almost always is, the right who get the 'identity' bandwagon rolling, forcing a response. They gambled that enough Americans would see that that it was necessary to call that out due to the apparent emergency nature of the situation. They were wrong, too many Americans just shrugged off Trump and co's rhetoric and refused to either take it seriously, or, more likely care, which is pretty unnerving in itself. What else would they be willing to shrug off? As it turns out the best approach would have been to just ignore it but that would have been morally questionable and they couldn't have known so many voters appear to have lost their moral compasses.
|
|
