Op-ed: The British Tory government has pinched yet another UK Labour party idea; the so-called living wage. The government has in effect rebranded the minimum wage as the national living wage as in truth it is anything but a real living wage. The introduction of a minimum wage was one Tony Blair's Labour government's big success stories. It took some people legally employed for around £2 an hour out of real hardship and poverty but only went part of the way to addressing income imbalance in the UK. It did however mean security guards for example were no longer 'forced' to work upwards of 60 hour working weeks to make ends meet. With income top ups for those with children it was an all-round good measure; a start. Almost 19 years later in work benefits have been slashed and the minimum wage has failed to keep up. Sure inflation currently may be relatively low but think of all the years between 1997 and 2016 when it was not. During those years the minimum wage failed to keep up and the fact inflation is low right now is in real terms meaningless to those employed on a basic income, in receipt of a benefit such as a state pension or JSA or on a temporary or zero or part time hours contract. But it is a better option than scrapping a minimum or living wage. When the minimum wage was introduced one security firm which operates locally said it would be bankrupt and soon if it was faced to pay more than its paltry £2.25 an hour. All these years later that firm is as prosperous as ever. The introduction of this 'living wage' could end up meaningless as there are reports that some firms will claw back bonus payments and other perks to pay for it. These days employment contracts have less protection which means they may have carte blanch to do so. But paying people a fair wage for a fair day's work has many benefits. If people have even a little disposable income they may book a holiday, buy nice household goods, treat themselves to a new outfit, save a little money, go out for a meal or what-they-will. Keeping too many people of the UK on an income knife edge hurts the economy, local business and more. It can damage the health of the young, vulnerable and the elderly. That in turn impacts on NHS costs, crime figures and so much more. So while we applaud the living wage we question whether it is a real living wage or not. After all it was set by some people who are millionaires and some who had a great start in life due to family wealth. The new national minimum wage of £7.20 per hour is for everyone 25 and over. So it is not a universal living wage. Again it shows David Cameron's 'One Nation' spin is just that-spin. Looking back over my life-by the age of 23 both my parents were dead. Unlike David Cameron who inherited vast sums of money nicely tucked away in off shore tax havens by his father there was no inheritance; aged 49 Cameron's mother is still alive and he did not lose his father at a young age. My Dad always worked apart from some periods when unrecognised WWII PTSD caught up with him. But he was employed by Hull City Engineers in its building division at a time when the council was not facing privatisation and severe cuts. So he was kept employed until he died at the age of 55; and I should add he was a damn hard worker. The house we lived in as kids was not much by today's standards but it was home and it was a tenancy for life; so at least no worries about a tenancy ending as long as you paid the rent. There was no crippling council tax either just the rates which on a small two up two downed property with no bathroom and an outside loo were relatively cheap. How very different to today. Young people face high rents, tenancies that are far from secure, a lack of affordable housing and a cut price wage until they become 25 and not much better when they reach that age. [The government has spent so much money implementing and publicising the new national living wage it could give us all an income top up] Yet those same under 25s may have children and already be married. Saving for a first home may not be on the cards and even after they reach the magic age of 25. While children these days are in many ways so much more grown up in essence they are being kept as children much longer unless they hail from a family with wealth. University education now comes at a price and sadly a price many cannot afford. And if I look back to when I married in 1972, when I was a smoker, I could purchase a pack of 20 cigs for 18p. I quit cigarettes in 1985, or so, so I had to check the current price online which is listed as £9.60 for a pack of 20 cigarettes; however these days many packs only have 18 or 19 and making cheaper looking prices misleading. But I use cigs as one example as we all know smoking is not good for you in any sense; it is just used as an example of increased costs. Consider my first little rented property in 1972 which had a rent of around £4 a month. It still lacked some basic amenities but was a good start for us and we soon made it home. And it was worth decorating and more as we again had a tenancy for life unless we defaulted on the rent or broke our rental contract. Short tenancies hardly encourage you to spend money renovating do they? It now costs an average £2,583 a month to take on a rented property in central London, compared with £663 in the north of England, the cheapest place to rent in the UK, according to Countrywide, which analysed more than 75,000 properties in England, Scotland and Wales. Such rents are obviously out of the reach of many young people; and some not so young too.
With high deposits and short term tenancies the odds are not in your favour. Buying a property could be a better option but hold that thought; interest rates are low but sooner or later will rise; lenders also now want large deposits. Taking the first step into a home of your own was never so tricky. BBC magazine has some facts and figures relating to what £7.20 an hour may be you in the UK and it shows that in spite of Tory trumpets that is not a living wage. Govt National Living Wage
0 Comments
Op-ed: Friday we posted "Not murder when an Israeli kills a helpless Palestinian." It was an opinion piece written by a retired teacher in Canada-a person who could never be seriously accused of being anti-Semitic or racist. It openly shares an opinion and it does not have a hidden agenda nor is it aimed at misleading the reader. That cannot be said for "Anti-Semitism at the heart of Corbyn's Labour Party: Devastating dossier exposes how extensive anti-Jewish bigotry is in Labour and poses profoundly troubling questions its leaders MUST answer" posted by the Mail Online Saturday. That piece begins "To the duffel-coated members of Labour’s ‘loony Left’, one particular weekly newspaper was, for much of the Eighties, required reading" but is that relevant in 2016? That lead into the story however must tell you all you need to know about its credibility? If you want an idea of the standard of journalism at the Mail Online consider that Katie Hopkins, previously a columnist at the Sun, joined the team in September 2015 days after Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party. If you are British you must have heard of Hopkins who has made her name and paid the bills out of abuse and sensationalist headlines such as: Petition against Katie Hopkins passes 250,000 mark Katie Hopkins attacks Kelly Clarkson again Katie Hopkins seeks personal attention out of the death of Cilla Black So how credible is Saturday's piece in the Mail? It uses information from the past, social media and Bitterities within the Labour party to craft an article which sensationalises a perceived anti-Semitic view allegedly running rampant in the Labour Party. You will need to read it carefully and perhaps more than once to see that it is in many ways out of time and a false flag. Are some so desperate to remove Jeremy Corbyn as party leader and John McDonnell as Shadow Chancellor that they are prepared to rake up old history and to sacrifice local elections scheduled for May? But in all political parties there are rogue elements. Tory Grant Schapps resigns amid bullying scandal for example. Sometimes it is the young who have a passion for politics, life and fair play. The first, a passion for politics, appears to have been true of PM David Cameron who allegedly in 1985 was a top member of the "Federation of Conservative Students, which produced the "Hang Mandela" posters. In 1989, Cameron worked in the Tory Policy Unit at Central Office and went on an anti-sanctions fact-finding mission to South Africa with a pro-apartheid lobby firm sponsored by PW Botha." The Independent wrote in 2009 "The trip by Mr Cameron in 1989, when he was a rising star of the Conservative Research Department, was a chance for him to "see for himself" and was funded by a firm that lobbied against the imposition of sanctions on the apartheid regime." Two wrongs do not make a right and calling all who criticise Israel - when it invades a neighbouring country and kills many, grabs land, appears to want to squeeze another small nation into oblivion and encircles that small country with a huge wall turning it into the world's largest open air concentration camp - anti-Semitic is plain wrong. This writer is not bigoted but nor is she naive enough not to realise that there may be elements in any political party with hidden agendas, and there may be "double agents" of sorts, trying to help the other side along. And of course money rules. The piece in the Mail Online uses social media posts to attack individuals. In one case it attacks a fair-minded individual who became embroiled in tit for tat debates on social media. During the last Israeli invasion of Gaza passions ran high. Can you really use a social media post in the heat of the moment to attack an individual's credibility? Hypocrisy rules in 2016. Raking up old news to cobble a story together can result in many things but is it really news? Still we have taken a small leaf out of the Mail Online's book of journalism to see where it leads. As for social media it can be many things including interesting, manipulated, funny, abusive, paid for, misinterpreted, taken out of context, polite, vile and at times far from social. And there are many forums online. Those that are closed are rarely invitation only; people tend to ask to join and are accepted or not. Why they join is relevant. Administrators of these groups face huge 24/7 challenges monitoring conversations, watching out for trolls, banning abusers and weeding out those with hidden agendas. That means invariably some problems from time to time but many of the political forums enable people to get together and share ideas and knowledge. Perhaps Labour needs to start fielding members to Tory forums, so they can copy text out of context and allow the mainstream media to manipulate politics ahead of elections? Finding a left-wing mainstream media source however could prove tricky. May 5, 2016, Vote Labour and ignore the right-wing hype. Remember WE are Labour, not the Bitterites or high-profile personalities. Opinion: Forget the UK EU in / out referendum for now; six weeks before the referendum, when the British electorate vote on our future in or out of Europe, there are local elections and this year they are more important than ever.
Fact - The May elections tend to have a poor turn out. Fact - You can change that. In 2016 many people are talking about the elections as if they are a make or break time for Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn. It should not be like that but it is. Elected as Labour Party leader September 12, 2015, Mr Corbyn's position has been undermined from day one and too many times from those who should be working for unity, supporting him as he settles into his role and enabling Labour to win elections. While we get the feeling that some Labour MPs and activists are almost gleefully rubbing their hands at the prospect of more Labour defeats at the polls people power could win the day. Across the Pond in the USA supporters of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, the two democrats fighting for the party nomination, face similar challenges. As some voters in the UK let petty personality politics get in the way of a Labour victory a similar situation could play out in the USA. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton cover different areas of the centre to left ground of US politics but they are on the same side. They are both hoping to represent the same political party and those who refuse to vote Democrat if their preferred candidate does not win are delusional. Similarly we hear UK Labour supporters saying they will not vote for their local candidate as they do not like them and other such foolish sentiments. Well we say NEWS ALERT. If you fall into the petty politics trap all you do is enable the other political party to win. If you are a UK voter and happy to see Mr Corbyn ousted on the back of Labour defeats, if they happen, you are not really a Labour person but rather a pathetic self-server. If you want more zero-hour jobs, government handouts to big businesses and banks, cuts to benefits for people with disabilities, social security reforms that have removed a financial safety net for many, the NHS privatised bit by bit, teachers up in arms due to enforced academy schools, fracking at even sensitive areas of the UK, huge pay rises for MPs and the Queen, pay freezes for public sector staff and more then use your democratic right not to vote. If you want to start the battle to remove the Tories from office before they enforce boundary changes which could help keep them in office for years get out there and vote. Forget local or petty party politics which can be addressed if necessary at another time. Vote Labour May 5. |
British political scene
The next General Election in the UK may not be scheduled any time soon but the British political landscape is changing. With that in mind this blog will concentrate on the political scene but with a left wing perspective. Opinion pieces and news will bring you the stories that the MSM prefer to ignore. Archives
September 2018
Categories
All
|