Print Story Attn: UKian voter infidels!
Diary
By Breaker (Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:04:06 AM EST) (all tags)
Blair was always going on about his "legacy".


The Labour Legacy.

Consider that when placing your x against Labour in May, comrades.

< anonimouses descent into chauvinism | I didn't see Spiderman 3, but this is so true: >
Attn: UKian voter infidels! | 109 comments (109 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Did you write it? by anonimouse (4.00 / 1) #1 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:14:13 AM EST
Only 40 hits so far could just about cover all of Husi!


Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
Nope. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #2 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:24:16 AM EST
But it was the first time I've seen all 13 years of Labour waste investment laid out end to end.

It gets a bit OTT on immigration towards the end IMHO but the factual bits I believe to be mostly correct.  Some cherry picked of course, a couple of comparisons going back to the 80's for effect, but when years are compared to 1997 as the baseline there's some interesting stats in there.


[ Parent ]
Cheating a bit by anonimouse (2.00 / 0) #5 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:34:56 AM EST
Whilst I don't disagree with the prinjciple of "What has Labour done for us", some of the figures are playing fast and loose with statistics.

1997 to 2010 is about 13 years, and inflation will have increased the size of benefit payments by (give or take) 50% in that time. Therefore, its no surprise to find say 100,000 claiming over 20k in 1997 compared to 300,000 now.


Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]
Not a good example by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #25 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:57:29 AM EST
As it's the number of people, not the amount that is changing.

But yes, some of those stats are misrepresented so they portray things in a certain light.

Of course, our Government would never do that.


[ Parent ]
Clarification by anonimouse (2.00 / 0) #27 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 11:07:26 AM EST
Let us say there are 100k people earning more than 20k on benefits in 1997
Let us also say there are 200k people earning 15k-20k on benefits in 1997

Simply by index linking of benefits over 13 years, those 200k will automatically be punted up into the above 20k category, giving the 300k quoted; it is not something attributable to government.


Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]
That's not exactly what the claim is though. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #40 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 12:38:40 PM EST
The claim is:
1997 – 100,000 receiving £20,000 per annum
2009 – 300,000 receiving £20,000 per annum

Which on a fixed band of 20K, those that then inflate away from the 20K are no longer counted. 

You've made the assumption (not unreasonably I might add) that what they meant was >=20K.

By not giving that clarification, and not stating if the 20k was inflation adjusted then yes, the claim is indeed obfuscatory, and absolutely fast and loose.

Doubtless there are others.


[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #3 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:25:10 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



Perhaps the author by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #4 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:30:21 AM EST
Wanted to show pro EU credentials by quoting the French president?


[ Parent ]
Another thing you have to remember by jump the ladder (4.00 / 2) #6 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:35:13 AM EST
What the alternative was at each election. And Tony Blair was standing for election in each one rather than the dour, scottish git.

1997 - John Major and his discredited and unpopular govt
2001 - William Hague and his baseball cap
2005 - Michael Howard, nuff  said

So it's not like there was a vaguely palatable alternative.

It'll be like 1992 all over again this year by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #8 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:37:58 AM EST
Although I'd really like to see what happens if a Libdem government gets elected.

How much will interest rates and gilt yields rise and how far will Sterling plummet?


[ Parent ]
I think Vince Cable by jump the ladder (4.00 / 1) #10 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:40:55 AM EST
Makes a pretty good chancellor compared to Darling or Osborne.

[ Parent ]
Vince Cable by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #13 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 07:04:12 AM EST
He's not able
To chair a G20 table.
  (NSFWFUP).

Nah St Vince has flip flopped whichever way the wind has been blowing, and hasn't really had the media hammer him & LibDem economic policies so far.

Bloggers have though, and even the FT tries to cost out his policies.

None of the prospective chancellors fill me with confidence.  Give me someone who has actual experience in balancing the books and making payroll each month.


[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #19 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 09:49:30 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Not true. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #38 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 12:26:26 PM EST
Cable also wants to hit you when you go on holiday..  There are unfunded tax statements in the LibDem manifesto, if you pick hard enough.

Which is what I expect the press will start doing this week.

Osborne - see parent comment where I state "None of the prospective chancellors fill me with confidence".  He doesn't have any gravitas on screen, and if he wanted to actually cut anything he should have stuck to his guns.  Too wobbly in the face of bad focus group pollings.

Darling - has a hunted look in his eyes every time I've seen him on telly.  When he Trots (hah C WAT I DID THR!) out the party line you can't help but think he's trotting out a devils advocate argument as best he can, after having had his own judgment and beliefs overruled by GTLSB.

Cable - as an economist, you'd think him a shoo in for the spot.  See previous post for his vacillations.  Apart from a brief spot as an actual practicing economist, he's had no real job for any length of time.  I forget the exact quote, but "put 2 economists in a room and you'll get 3 different opinions".

So, give me someone who has had a credible track record of running a decent sized company, who hasn't had to deal with the intangibles that get mixed up in political economics, and who can get Britain's private sector back into sustainable growth. 

None of the above give the impression they'd know how to achieve that, not even St Vince.


[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #39 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 12:33:16 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
I disagree on that by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #44 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 12:53:44 PM EST
But do you agree there could be a better candidate than the 3 on offer?


[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #45 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 12:59:01 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Here you go by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #99 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 12:49:54 PM EST
From the Chancellors debate today, St Vince loses his halo.


[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #101 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:01:11 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
LOLWHAT! by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #103 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 05:39:13 PM EST
Standards?

Have a look at the other links I put up about St Vince; pretty much everything Brillo came up with is included in that.


[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #105 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 07:46:07 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Cable bashing? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #106 Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:42:23 AM EST
Nope, holding him to account for the things he's said, trying to get people to see that at the end of the day, he's a lying politician (tautology?) no better than the rest of them.

I can think of only one politician that regularly comments on economics, and that's John Redwood.


[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #107 Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 06:47:13 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
Didn't we do this a while back? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #108 Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 08:03:42 AM EST
When I was pilloried for limiting the options.  What colour is grass, again?


[ Parent ]
At last... Someone who 'gets it'. by dmg (2.00 / 0) #53 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:56:34 PM EST
 "Osborne hangs out with the same oligarchs Mandelson hangs out with."

And we all know who they are, the usual suspects.

Hence why voting is a futile gesture at best, and downright complicit at worst.

--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
In retrospect by anonimouse (2.00 / 0) #11 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:47:47 AM EST
Hague would have probably been a better choice. He seems to know how to make money and (Yorkshire accent aside) seems to be a very competent speaker.


Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]
Hague by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #12 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:54:58 AM EST
Right man, wrong time for him to be Tory leader.


[ Parent ]
Foreign Land speech by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #15 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 07:54:43 AM EST
Put the electorate off him big time.

There were also a couple of PR disasters - the baseball cap, the claim he used to drink 14 pints a day - that don't really matter in my mind but tend to have a big impact on the electorate. You could argue they show immaturity and a lack of judgement.

He comes across as an intelligent bloke nowadays, though crucially it actually seemed like he was hiding it at the time.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
And yet by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #37 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 11:52:45 AM EST
Many people today say that immigration is one of their top issues.

14 pints and the cap - fail.


[ Parent ]
Is anyone on Husi actually going to vote Labour? by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #7 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:35:52 AM EST

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

I thought we'd agreed by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #9 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:38:31 AM EST
That I would be voting Labour.

Anyone else?


[ Parent ]
We'd agreed? by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #14 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 07:44:01 AM EST
Your choice mate

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (2.00 / 0) #20 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 09:50:46 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



[ Parent ]
How do you know by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #28 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 11:09:59 AM EST
I already haven't?

However, we must first let matters run their course,, before The Constant Party can begin to bring peace and prosperity to this pitiful, ruined island.


[ Parent ]
You're planning on running in Iceland? (nt) by Driusan (2.00 / 0) #31 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 11:24:30 AM EST


--
Vive le Montréal libre.
[ Parent ]
why wolud you do that? by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #23 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:33:38 AM EST
anyone reading your diaries would be convinced you loathe them.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.
[ Parent ]
I believe I stated why I'll be voting Labour by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #32 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 11:25:37 AM EST
In a previous BreakerMatic entry.


[ Parent ]
right. by aphrael (4.00 / 2) #51 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 02:13:19 PM EST
this is what communists call "heightening the contradictions": doing everything in your power to make things as bad as you can make them, so that everyone will recognize the rightness of your political views.

It's a giant fuck-you to your fellow man: I'll make you suffer until you agree with me.

If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

[ Parent ]
You know by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #59 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 09:28:21 PM EST
I'm not actually too sure who you're going on about there, "heightening the contradictions".

Who exactly are you talking about there, who has everything in their power?


[ Parent ]
are you really unfamiliar with the concept? by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #72 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 11:05:25 PM EST
there's an idea that's long circulated in communist circles (and in leftist circles more generally) that the way to bring about the communist utopia is to support all of the excesses of capitalism. support those excesses, help capitalism develop into the worst possible monster, and it will fall apart of its own weight, and the resulting catastrophe will cause the people to bring about socialism.

it's a fucked up way of thinking: let's make things as bad as they can possibly get, and then once that happens, the people will have no choice but to choose the path we knew is right for them.

it's the identical argument, structurally, as your argument for voting for labor.

----------

also, you misunderstand my use of "everything in your power". everyone has some power. using everything in your power to do [x] means ... using all the power that you have to help bring about [x].

it doesn't imply that your power is universal.
If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

[ Parent ]
Hm by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #76 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 04:26:43 AM EST
Sitting looking at the outside, it seems that is what Catholicism is attempting right now.


[ Parent ]
Although where the Catholic church is aiming for by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #80 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 05:45:27 AM EST
Who knows?

Infallible pope, indeed.


[ Parent ]
Until about 5 minutes ago, I was. by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #81 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 05:50:23 AM EST
Thanks for the education. 

But while I don't want the country to fall apart, I'd like to see people actually reading manifestos and holding governments to account.  Instead of blindly putting an x next to the dog in a blue rosette or the monkey in the red tie pin.

Over here, our economy is fucked.  The only way we can realistically fix that is to stop spending what we earn.  One party tried that line and had their opinion poll ratings plummet.  People don't want to hear hardship tomorrow, success next week, only jam tomorrow and hardship on the never never.


[ Parent ]
People in the uk think like football supporters by dmg (2.00 / 0) #102 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 05:31:50 PM EST
When it comes to religion and politics, they tend to support their 'team', without really thinking why. 
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
You're really rather slow, aph, by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #36 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 11:47:55 AM EST
Myself, I've got 3rd December 2009 etched on my memory as the day of Breaker's famous "Must show Labour to fail" diary.

[ Parent ]
Indeed. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #48 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 01:12:11 PM EST
Although I suspect what I learnt from it is different to you.


[ Parent ]
I'm not sure what I learned from it. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #50 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 01:39:50 PM EST
But then my own political views are far more nuanced than you realised and far less arrogant than your own.

Here: would you like me to buy you t-shirt?

[ Parent ]
Save your money. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #60 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 09:31:21 PM EST
Post an AmbrosenMatic diary or twenty and give me links in each to back up your conclusions.

What sort of government do you aspire to vote for, or indeed, represent?


[ Parent ]
There's not much interesting to say about politics by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #79 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 05:01:06 AM EST
It's basically just a case of competent management and weighing up the trade-offs.

I'll vote for the Liberal Democrats come this election.

And I still don't think you understand what citations are for.

[ Parent ]
Oooh I don't know, politics by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #82 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 05:54:41 AM EST
Seems to get many excited.

LibDems mmm, no new power plants (no credible plan on how that'll work out), holiday taxes (see other posting in this diary), and a whole lot of uncosted cake.

What do you take my understanding of citations to be, then?


[ Parent ]
Is DullTrev still around? by Scrymarch (2.00 / 0) #16 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 09:21:19 AM EST


Iambic Web Certified

[ Parent ]
I was thinking about him by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #17 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 09:25:48 AM EST
From what I remember he left the party (?) so who knows?

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
He might have left the party by Scrymarch (2.00 / 0) #58 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 08:14:30 PM EST
But he seemed pretty much rusted on. I don't know him well enough, but am reminded of Mark Latham, Australian Labor opposition leader who had massive feuds and got royally screwed by his colleagues, resigned from parliament. When asked who he was choosing at the election said more or less "well I wouldn't vote for those other bastards".

Iambic Web Certified

[ Parent ]
If memory serves by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #61 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 09:37:40 PM EST
He was pretty disgusted by what the Labour party had morphed into, so he left the party, or at least being an activist.

Then he had a load of work grief, got a contracting job which paid decent money, and then questioned his politics in a roundabout sort of fashion[].

After that, who knows?  For the record, I hope he's earning scads of cash and nailing five different nymphs a week, or settled down happily with a good lady, whichever appeals most to him.

[] I may have got timelines wrong, and indeed the rest of it.  If so, DullTrev, please post a rebuttal and I'll apologise unreservedly for my poor memory.


[ Parent ]
Damn you autoformat! by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #62 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 09:38:29 PM EST
Should have been a * as a footnote, not a bold.


[ Parent ]
Well by Scrymarch (4.00 / 1) #70 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:34:24 PM EST
I agree with the bolded sentence anyway :)

Iambic Web Certified

[ Parent ]
Looking at it again by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #71 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:59:20 PM EST
Can't knock it, either.


[ Parent ]
Does is matter what you vote? by brokkr (4.00 / 1) #22 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:07:38 AM EST
Has any democratic election in recorded memory been decided by exactly one vote? If not, chances are pretty good your vote is irrelevant, right?
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
Ah well by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #83 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 05:56:32 AM EST
Might as well not vote then, eh?


[ Parent ]
Exactly by brokkr (2.00 / 0) #93 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:30:25 AM EST
Especially when the choice is between one or the other corporate suit, most of whom have zero real world experience.
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
First, let's get shot of the poison. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #95 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:43:56 AM EST
Then apply the bandage. 


[ Parent ]
I can't. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #97 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:21:05 AM EST
OK, I can in the general election, obviously, but last local election in my ward, Labour didn't field a candidate.

I have the candidate's leaflet here. She doesn't live in the city. It says:

A vote for Labour is not a wasted vote. We could have a Labour MP in Bath if every elector who believes in a society which is fair and equal for all - regardless of gender, religion, race, wealth, background - voted Labour


[ Parent ]
I like the lack of bias by Dr Thrustgood (4.00 / 1) #18 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 09:38:29 AM EST
E.g. completely ignoring the introduction of the minimum wage.



Sierra Leone and Kosova by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #21 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:05:20 AM EST
True foreign policy successes

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
They rank up there by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #30 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 11:23:26 AM EST
But you also have to include Iraq, Afghanistan and the SFO dropping the BAe enquiry.


[ Parent ]
Definitely by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #34 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 11:40:23 AM EST
And I think the success in Sierre Leone and Kosova might have led to overconfidence in the effectiveness of military intervention.

However I'm still not sure about Afghanistan, Al Qeada is pretty fucked and I wonder if that would be the case if we weren't there. Not to mention how awful things were under the Taliban.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
Afghanistan. by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #46 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 01:06:59 PM EST
No clear mission, no clear exit strategy.  Arguably defensible though.


[ Parent ]
I am sure by anonimouse (2.00 / 0) #24 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:39:52 AM EST
...all the migrant workers in the UK are grateful


Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]
That is a double edged sword by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #29 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 11:22:26 AM EST
Great for the person who's now earning a better wage, not so great for the person who can't get a job because employers can't afford to pay minimum wage.

Swings and roundabouts.

The one thing I would commend Labour for is their treatment for the homeless.  When I moved to London you saw a lot more people sleeping rough on the streets.  I still frequent a lot of the same places I used to go 14 years ago and there are nowhere near as many.

Great going for 13 years in government.


[ Parent ]
Well by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #33 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 11:28:26 AM EST
If they can't live on below minimum wage anyway (speaking as someone who tried to exist on 3 quid an hour and ended up having to do 12 hour shifts)...
Minimum wage shouldn't damage the market - it should only be a means by which the market does not damage the human.


[ Parent ]
Been there too. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #47 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 01:08:53 PM EST
15 hours / day.

See Min wage link in post below for "damaging the market". 

If employment drops due to the minimum wage, is it a better overall good?  That's a debatable point in my view.


[ Parent ]
... by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #56 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 04:31:02 PM EST

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
SEVENSSS by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #63 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 09:44:41 PM EST
Now, can that dino suggest a sensible fiscal policy, tailored to each nation but with a global reach?


[ Parent ]
.... by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #64 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:06:27 PM EST

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
You got by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #66 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:16:26 PM EST
That dino's contact details?  There's a couple of government departments and airline planners over here that really could use that kind of skill right now...


[ Parent ]
..... by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #75 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 04:12:17 AM EST

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #84 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 05:58:30 AM EST
Then!


[ Parent ]
Minimum wage hurts employment? by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #35 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 11:45:14 AM EST
But how come unemployment's not particularly high, given the parlous state of the economy.

[ Parent ]
Well. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #43 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 12:52:48 PM EST
Starting with the Tories, government's sussed they could keep headline unemployment down by introducing incapacity benefit.  Which Labour then seized on and perfected.

Minimum wage: "A minimum wage, if it is to be effective in reducing poverty, must be fixed above the market-clearing wage. But the corollary of this
is that it is likely to cause employment losses".


[ Parent ]
Quite. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #49 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 01:35:34 PM EST
re: minimum wage: That's the theory. Which is why I said that the practice doesn't appear to have borne this out. Your link also appears (I've not read it in depth) to say that that is the case with the (much higher) French minimum wage. I suspect it's the converse of the lump-of-labour fallacy.

re: benefits: Benefits for those unable to work have always existed, and it's not as if you're telling me anything I've not heard, realised or thought about before when you say that Jobseeker's Allowance claimants don't represent all of those looking for work. There's plenty of survey based figures which, I'm sure, don't show any particular change in labour market participation at the introduction of the minimum wage, nor at any of its increases. I've not presented figures because presenting figures which give an accurate picture involves a long report, much like the one you just linked for me.

[ Parent ]
Mmm: "Theory". by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #65 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:11:48 PM EST
practice doesn't appear to have borne this out.
Link to a reputable source, please.

I suspect it's the converse of the lump-of-labour fallacy.
Link to a reputable source, please.

There's plenty of survey based figures which, I'm sure, don't show any particular change in labour market participation at the introduction of the minimum wage
Link to a reputable source, please.

I've not presented figures because presenting figures which give an accurate picture involves a long report
Link to a reputable source, please.  I'm willing to read it, even if you're not going to read my links "in depth".

I am always asked to provide links and defend my analysis of them; if someone digs up a better, more reasoned scenario, do you honestly think I will cling to dogma and not change my view in accordance with better facts?


[ Parent ]
Re: Theory by brokkr (2.00 / 0) #73 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 03:06:31 AM EST
Denmark has had full employment at the same time as having a minimum wage of about 10 quid an hour.
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
Got any detail on that? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #86 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 06:02:08 AM EST
Also not understanding how the taxation / benefits system in Daneland is probably a hurdle to understanding how that works over there.

Was it Daneland that also saved their oil revenues and put them in a very well managed investment fund, or some other Scandie nation?


[ Parent ]
Detail by brokkr (2.00 / 0) #96 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:53:06 AM EST
All links I can find are in Danish, so you'll have to take my word for it, but the Statistics Denmark tell me that from May 2007 to March 2009 unemployment was below 3 per cent, which is generally reckoned "full employment" over here (there will always be a number of people between jobs etc.). The low point was 1.6 per cent unemployment rate in the summer of 2008.

The minimum wage in 2009 was 103 kroner (12 pounds if converted today - a bit fewer back then) per hour and has been rising about 3 kroner per hour per annum for the last decade or two to more or less match inflation.

Taxation in Denmark is basically "hand over at least half your gross salary," with the marginal taxation in the top tax bracket being some seventy per cent if I remember correctly. Deductions are most significantly made for mortgage interest payments.

All the Danish oil has basically been sold for three pence and a flat football to Maersk. You might be thinking of the Norwegians, who actually managed to get a communal benefit from their natural resources.
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
Interesting by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #98 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:51:34 AM EST
I shall have a shufty.  Thanks for the reply.


[ Parent ]
To be honest, by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #78 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 04:56:54 AM EST
if someone digs up a better, more reasoned scenario, do you honestly think I will cling to dogma and not change my view in accordance with better facts?
Yes, I do think you'll cling to your dogma.

[ Parent ]
Tease. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #85 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 06:01:13 AM EST
Ignore all my requests for some evidence to back up your claims, and go straight for the attack.


[ Parent ]
Your BreakerMatic reply by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #67 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:21:40 PM EST
Your post, to me, reads:
I don't believe your theory from impartial OECD observers, because that conflicts my own worldview and I don't like that.

I can't be arsed either reading your links to credible research, or providing my own links to other credible sources.

I will now invoke vague references to economic theory, when a symmetric relation is not clearly in the offing and I will provide no supporting links or analysis to provide weight to my argument when I assert that the contrary to your argument is the exact inverse.

I will now use an incredibly long sentence to agree with you, without actually saying I agree with you.

I will then disagree with you, on the basis that I've not presented figures because presenting figures which give an accurate picture involves a long report, which is far too hard for me to look for, and you might find holes in it which I can't understand nor defend.


[ Parent ]
I understand your points very easily. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #77 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 04:35:01 AM EST
I didn't need a link to tell me that there are and always have been concerns that the minimum wage may reduce employment, and I did read enough of the link to know that the authors couldn't find enough studies to show this either way. They could find evidence that it had increased wages for the young.

So the article shows that the minimum wage is definitely not something which can be just dismissed with a sneer. To present an argument against it you have to be weighing the impact of reduced working poverty against a possible increase in unemployment, and also to understand that an increased minimum wage may be a driver towards higher labour productivity. Or conversely towards wage-led inflation, if economic conditions are wrong.

See, more of that nuance thingamijig again.

[ Parent ]
So really your argument boils down to by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #87 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 06:09:41 AM EST
More jobs on low pay, or fewer better paid jobs.

I'd argue that the beneficial effects of having more people working, and finding satisfaction in earning their way was a better thing. 

Give people some sense of pride and self determination; there's a lot of good that can come from that. 


[ Parent ]
That's not what my argument boils down to. by ambrosen (4.00 / 1) #88 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 07:43:10 AM EST
More jobs on low pay, or fewer better paid jobs.
That's what the tradeoff is.

You can have a low minimum wage (or no minimum wage at all) which doesn't increase anyone's wage and doesn't discourage job creation, or you can have a minimum wage which is so high that job creation is discouraged but those with a job are well off. And somewhere in between those two is a sweet spot where you have a liveable minimum wage but still plenty of jobs being created.

The (inverse) relationship between minimum wage and job creation isn't linear, that's all I'm saying.

[ Parent ]
I don't doubt there is indeed a sweet spot. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #89 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:09:02 AM EST
Now then, where is it?


[ Parent ]
Somewhere about where it is now, I think. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #90 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:40:06 AM EST
But I thought you said earlier that it was the minimum wage itself that was the problem.

[ Parent ]
Yep. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #91 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:11:04 AM EST
I said it would cause damage.  Which brings us back to the point made above - more jobs at lower pay, less jobs at higher pay.

I believe that more people in work, slightly poorer paid, is better than less people in work but better paid.  Minimum wage favours the latter outcome, so to my thinking, it is a worse of the two. 

Don't forget the benefits to the individual and society from being in paid work.

So, that sweet spot, does it exist?  And if it does, is it on a knife edge, easily moved away from optimal?  In which case, do you continually adjust the minimum wage each quarter to maintain it?


[ Parent ]
First, by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #92 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:30:10 AM EST
Don't forget the benefits to the individual and society from being in paid work.
Is more than a little patronising.

Second, you said in the post before this:

I don't doubt there is indeed a sweet spot.
and now you're asking me if it exists.

So this is where I came in ten posts ago. If economic inactivity in this recession is at an acceptable level, then probably the minimum wage isn't too high.

And of course given that wage-related costs (i.e. wages, taxes and benefits) aren't necessarily that much of the cost of employing someone (think of the costs of the equipment they use, the cost of their office space, the raw materials they use, etc) that's one other reason why job creation isn't elastic with reference to wage costs.

[ Parent ]
Patronising? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #94 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:42:36 AM EST
Yeah man, that Maslow was like totally condescending.

Tachyons also exist, theoretically, which is the point I was driving at - for the MW does such a spot exist, and is it stable enough to be able to craft economic policy?

If economic inactivity in this recession is at an acceptable level
Oooh unleash your inner Tory there.  ""If higher unemployment is the price we have to pay in order to bring inflation down, then it is a price worth paying." - Norman Lamont.

As a general rule, take your salary and double it, that is the effective cost of employing you.


[ Parent ]
It's not patronising to say people need jobs. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #100 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 01:02:41 PM EST
It's patronising to inform me of that as if it wasn't something I was already taking into account.

In terms of how jobless rates in Britain are, here's a couple of graphs:

vs. the rest of the world (we're doing better than any other large, rich nation, basically), and vs. the last 15 years (they're not at historically high levels, despite the depth of this recession).

The use of the phrase "acceptable level of unemployment" doesn't make me a Tory, either. It just means that, like Mr Lamont, I realise there are tradeoffs to be made. (Unlike Mr Lamont, of course, I'm not the one making the tradeoffs).

And I'm not quite sure whether you got my point about non-payroll costs (which are different to non-salary costs).

[ Parent ]
Joblessness by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #104 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 05:50:27 PM EST
How much, as a percentage, of UKia now works for the state, either as a direct employee, an employee of a firm or charity that is mostly dependant on taxpayers money (collected and distributed by the government)?

Given that we're borrowing one pound for every four spent, is that sustainable?

If I'd have gone on about "acceptable" levels of unemployment, would the leftists on here have let it go?  I believe this was one of the quotes that led to the dubbing of the Tories as "the nasty party".

Please clarify what you meant about non-payroll / non salary costs, if you think I have misunderstood you.


[ Parent ]
And how is that unemployment ratio by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #109 Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 10:28:50 PM EST
Not really by Dr Thrustgood (4.00 / 1) #42 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 12:47:11 PM EST
If a company relies on slave labour, personally I'd rather not see them in business.



[ Parent ]
Hold on... by dmg (4.00 / 1) #54 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 04:04:41 PM EST
What about if those people were Libertarians? People have a right to sell their labour under whatever terms they so choose...
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
You are outdated by TPD (2.00 / 0) #26 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:58:22 AM EST
 the fashion is to argue against the Liberal vote at the moment!

I do find it quite funny that the Tories have been campaigning on the "need for change" (as in anything but this sack of shite government) , which has heavily played into the wibberal's hands.


why sit, when you can sit and swivel with The Ab-SwivellerTM
Yeah by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #41 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 12:45:19 PM EST
Truly the "get a bag of popcorn" election so far.


[ Parent ]
I love it by dmg (4.00 / 1) #55 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 04:06:59 PM EST
'time for a change' is just about the most content-free, vacuous platform any political party could ever come up with. You've got to wonder if the Tories really _want_ to win this election. Or perhaps their estimation of the intellect of the average British voter is even lower than my already extremely low estimate.
 
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
Perhaps they learned it by garlic (4.00 / 1) #57 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 07:40:27 PM EST
from American President Changey McHoperstein.


[ Parent ]
Every time I hear it by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #68 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:26:12 PM EST
I get cheesy Motley Crue lyrics from their Dr Feelgood album.

Tories: publicly say "no hard tax cuts" with an undercurrent of yeah but we will, nod wink shuffle.

Then: "Big Society" - all we hear is an undercurrent of "no change at all, business as usual, we'll be taxing you to penury and oooh look at how many more civil liberties there are left for us to deny you, you lucky proles!"


[ Parent ]
May 1999 by dmg (4.00 / 1) #52 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:51:16 PM EST
May 1999 – sold 395 tonnes of the Bank of England’s gold reserves at $275.6 an ounce "

They forgot to add that this was probably against the advice of the treasury, and his stroke of characteristic financial genius in alerting the markets beforehand about what he planned to do.
In my mind, this act of monumental stupidity/malicious duplicity alone disqualifies the one eyed Scottish idiot from public office. That's before we get onto his alleged psychosis and bullying of junior staff.

--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
C&P formatting? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #69 Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:28:05 PM EST
You also forgot, warning the markets "we're going to sell a metric fuckload of gold, yeah!"

Who bought most of it?  Was it a bank who'd cosied up to the government, and made some bad positions on gold futures?

Who knows?


[ Parent ]
Goldman Sachs by jump the ladder (2.00 / 0) #74 Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 03:50:36 AM EST
They're always the counter-party on the biggest dud deals (for the other party)

[ Parent ]
Attn: UKian voter infidels! | 109 comments (109 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback