2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[Alf Bentley]

Old data

Old data

Guesswork

 

 

Detailed data showing large fall in real pay over 6+ years to April-August 2014

 

Detailed comparative data showing that real pay in UK has fallen more, 2008-2014, than in any other developed country

 

Informed guesswork, quoting hard data, by a former member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee

 

 

Real wages are on the rise though, so...

 

Claim with no source and no data, but presumably based on reports such as this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2831349/Pay-rising-faster-prices-time-five-years-30-8m-work.html

...showing that figures for one month saw real pay rise by 0.1%, provided that you ignore bonuses, due to low inflation....

 

This compares with a fall of 8.8% over six years: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/29d2ccd2-6f23-11e4-8d86-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3LQgDX7zU

 

It also compares to a fall of 1.6% between 2013 and 2014 alone, according to ONS:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2014-provisional-results/stb-ashe-statistical-bulletin-2014.htm

[Alf Bentley]

Quite funny looking back at some of David Blanchflower's earlier guesswork:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/oct/18/david-blanchflower-warns-against-spending-cuts

Based on his track record if he's saying wages aren't going to continue growing, we should all start celebrating because that's exactly what they'll do.

 

 

Presumably we should do the same about whatever Osborne predicts. Didn't he plan to eliminate the deficit within 5 years, and has only managed half of that....and the last figures (admittedly short-term) showed the deficit actually rising again?!

:xmaslaugh:

[MooseBreath]

I'm not denying that real wages fell for quite a long time. I would say that there were reasons for that such as cuts to well paid public sector non-jobs and pension auto-enrolment. But that's in the past, I'm talking about now. The stats show t hat wages are growing, anecdotal evidence suggests the same. Did you see the story today about bricklayers earning £1,000pw? As an indicator of economic health, people feeling comfortable enough to construct buildings is quite a strong one, what with their long term nature and large upfront capital costs. If we're building so much that we can't find enough brickies and labourers that indicates boomtime in wage growth is just around the corner to me.

Alternatively you could listen to the Labour economist who has a frankly horrible track record of attacking the tories via make-believe economics that get proven wrong again and again.

[Buce]

Coalition.

Tory in all but name: Clegg has been taking it up the ass (possibly metaphorically only) for five years.

[Guest MattP]

Tory in all but name: Clegg has been taking it up the ass (possibly metaphorically only) for five years.

So you happy to admit that the free childcare for families and taking millions of low paid workers out of paying tax altogether was complete 100% Tory policy?

[Guest MattP]

If you seriously think it has been all Tory I'd like to know the explanation for the boundaries still being the same as they were from Blair's era.

[Rincewind]

Tory in all but name: Clegg has been taking it up the ass (possibly metaphorically only) for five years.

Clegg was given a metaphorical brown paper bag as well.

[Buce]

So you happy to admit that the free childcare for families and taking millions of low paid workers out of paying tax altogether was complete 100% Tory policy?

Meh, a few table-scraps thrown to Cameron's bitch to keep his tail wagging.

[Guest MattP]

Meh, a few table-scraps thrown to Cameron's bitch to keep his tail wagging.

Nonsense. Now part of all parties policy, it was magnificent to take so many low paid out of the tax bracket, certainly not scraps on a table.

I'd love to see it extended to 14500.

[Buce]

Nonsense. Now part of all parties policy, it was magnificent to take so many low paid out of the tax bracket, certainly not scraps on a table.

I'd love to see it extended to 14500.

If you are earning so little that a modest rise in the tax allowance takes you out of paying tax altogether, then I doubt that the extra 4 or 5 quid a week makes a discernable difference to your life.

[Guest MattP]

If you are earning so little that a modest rise in the tax allowance takes you out of paying tax altogether, then I doubt that the extra 4 or 5 quid a week makes a discernable difference to your life.

So an extra 40-60 quid a month in a low paid workers pocket is a pittance, yet an 8 quid reduction in the form of a 'bedroom tax' is so astronomical it's the evil Tory government driving people to suicide?

[Buce]

So an extra 40-60 quid a month in a low paid workers pocket is a pittance, yet an 8 quid reduction in the form of a 'bedroom tax' is so astronomical it's the evil Tory government driving people to suicide?

I'd like to see the maths for your first assertion.

As for the second, a) it is £14 per week for one bedroom, (25 for a second), and b) that amounts to around 20% of JSA, which at 73 odd quid a week is already living on the breadline. Let's not forget that there is also a percentage of council tax to pay now, on top of full water rates, fuel bills, food etc.

Austerity is not about reducing the defecit, otherwise we would all be 'in it together', (which we are clearly not), it is purely idealogical.

[MooseBreath]

£12k salary take home pay per month

09/10 - £850.27

14/15 - £926.23

Minimum wage take home pay, based on 40 hours per week

09/10 - £853.95

14/15 - £1,012.36

Increase of 18% or roughly 3.5% per annum, more than double the current rate of inflation.

These tories, always attacking the poor.

[Strokes]

I'd like to see the maths for your first assertion.

As for the second, a) it is £14 per week for one bedroom, (25 for a second), and b) that amounts to around 20% of JSA, which at 73 odd quid a week is already living on the breadline. Let's not forget that there is also a percentage of council tax to pay now, on top of full water rates, fuel bills, food etc.

Austerity is not about reducing the defecit, otherwise we would all be 'in it together', (which we are clearly not), it is purely idealogical.

£73 a week after rent and rates, is more than I used to live on. Its not that bad really, they don't have the day to day stress of paying rent. Just turn up once a week and sign a form.

I don't think its unreasonable to expect people to pay more for bigger properties, I'm yet to hear a convincing argument otherwise.

[Guest MattP]

Sexual harassment claims made against UKIP candidate called.... Roger Bird.

 

Looks like the dream 'scandal' is turning out to be another pack of lies directed at the party. Front page of The Times and The Telegraph this was as well.

 

Becoming quite clear to me some of these 'defectors' causing aggro are actually working for the elite in trying to bring down UKIP.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2867718/Ukip-chief-blasts-sex-accuser-revealing-text-messages.html

 

 

P.S A Tory MP was arrested for rape last week in case you missed it.

[Webbo]

Tbf I'd bang it.

[Guest MattP]

Tbf I'd bang it.

 

She's alright isn't she?

 

Looking a bit desperate now though when the Labour party doesn't appear to mind sending women in to try and seduce senior UKIP officials in order to try and generate some scandal, around the same time they were slagging Cameron off as well for not wearing a 'this is what a feminist looks like t-shirt'.

 

At least that's something an all women shortlist would be useful for.

[ADK]

She seems like the typical Labour type of candidate.

[Alf Bentley]

She's alright isn't she?

 

Looking a bit desperate now though when the Labour party doesn't appear to mind sending women in to try and seduce senior UKIP officials in order to try and generate some scandal, around the same time they were slagging Cameron off as well for not wearing a 'this is what a feminist looks like t-shirt'.

 

At least that's something an all women shortlist would be useful for.

 

 

Looking a bit desperate now when you're flinging mud at the Labour Party without presenting any evidence, Matt, and using the word "appear" to cover yourself against any potential libel suits!  :xmaslaugh:

 

Have you got any evidence for your implication, apart from the fact that this woman was once involved with the Labour Party? I wouldn't entirely put it past them, but some evidence would be nice.

 

Did you see her on Newsnight last night? I'm astonished to read that she's an Oxford-educated teacher, as she came across as completely gormless; maybe she was just nervous, to be generous to her. She also seemed to have a sense of entitlement to be a candidate for some party or another. It sounds as if she got nowhere up the greasy pole in the Labour Party, then went to UKIP - and they lapped her up, presenting her at their conference and considering her as candidate for one of their key target seats. Wonder if the fact that she's young, non-male and mixed race had anything to do with it? Would certainly help their image as a bunch of grumbling old white blokes who are obsessed with immigrants!

 

Then again, maybe they're just genuinely clueless, looking at this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/disgraced-extory-mp-neil-hamilton-in-line-to-make-stunning-commons-comeback-for-ukip-9911421.html

This can't be true, can it?! That the new face of UKIP, "the people's party", and key seat candidate to be disgraced ex-Tory "cash for questions" sleazebag Neil Hamilton?!?!  :xmaslaugh:

It's across several on-line papers, not just the Indie, so I don't think it's a LibLabCon conspiracy, though it might be...... If it's true, you really couldn't make it up!

[Guest MattP]

No evidence at all Alf, just the bizarre situation of a Tower Hamlets labour party member making a sudden transfer to UKIP and being involved in a scandal that makes the national news within three months. As with Rotherham it's not a situation where emails would have been left lying around.

I've no doubt her ethnicity and gender played a part in promotion, I agree there and I'm sure a lot of people know that would have been the case.

[Guest MattP]

I have no problem with Neil Hamilton either, people who have committed far worse in parliament on all sides. Those in glass houses etc

[bovril]

She's definitely Labour, she said she wore doc martens and a denim skirt to a dinner date.

[Guest MattP]

She's definitely Labour, she said she wore doc martens and a denim skirt to a dinner date.

Was going to mention that but didn't want to come across as too Tory

[Webbo]

 

 

Looking a bit desperate now when you're flinging mud at the Labour Party without presenting any evidence, Matt, and using the word "appear" to cover yourself against any potential libel suits!  :xmaslaugh:

 

Have you got any evidence for your implication,

 

 

 

 she came across as completely gormless;

 

 

Answered your own question.  :xmastongue:

 

[Alf Bentley]

I'm not denying that real wages fell for quite a long time. I would say that there were reasons for that such as cuts to well paid public sector non-jobs and pension auto-enrolment. But that's in the past, I'm talking about now. The stats show t hat wages are growing, anecdotal evidence suggests the same. Did you see the story today about bricklayers earning £1,000pw? As an indicator of economic health, people feeling comfortable enough to construct buildings is quite a strong one, what with their long term nature and large upfront capital costs. If we're building so much that we can't find enough brickies and labourers that indicates boomtime in wage growth is just around the corner to me.

Alternatively you could listen to the Labour economist who has a frankly horrible track record of attacking the tories via make-believe economics that get proven wrong again and again.

 

We'll see what happens, I suppose. Maybe real wages will surge up now, maybe not. The figures for the next few months will be economically interesting and politically important. However, you can't ignore an 8.8% fall over 6 years in favour of a 0.1% rise in 1 month because that's what's happening "now"!  

 

I saw something about thousands of bricklayers being recruited from abroad due to a growth in demand and a skills shortage among the native population - not sure if that's the story you mean? If so, maybe if we'd indulged in some Keynesian investment in those skills, instead of seeking to immediately balance the budget for ideological reasons, we might be further reducing domestic unemployment instead of recruiting immigrant bricklayers?  :xmaswink:

 

I've only just had a chance to look at your 2010 Blanchflower article and it doesn't show him getting proven wrong at all. He said that Osborne should spread his cuts over a longer period, which is what he's ended up doing, isn't it, having failed to meet his target of eliminating the deficit within 4 years? He also said that Osborne's strategy of cutting in a recession would make things worse - and it's certainly arguable that it did for several years, as unemployment rose and growth flatlined for about 3 years. Granted, growth is now back and unemployment falling (though real living standards are still much lower than in 2010), but he didn't say that growth and employment would fall forever, just that cuts would make the situation worse - which is certainly an arguable case, as growth rose for 2 quarters in 2010 on the back of Darling's policies and was then stagnant for about 3 years under Osborne.

 

So you happy to admit that the free childcare for families and taking millions of low paid workers out of paying tax altogether was complete 100% Tory policy?

 

I must admit that I agree with you on this one. The Lib Dems have had some impact on the coalition government (including the boundary changes, as you say) - and couldn't reasonably be expected to have had more of an impact. After all, it was the Tories who had the largest number of MPs after the last election. Clegg & co have made some serious errors, notably making the promise that they did over tuition fees. I happen to disagree with that policy anyway, as tuition fees couldn't be a priority in tough times, but regardless of that, they knew that there was a chance they'd end up in a coalition and that they probably wouldn't be able to deliver on that policy - or should have known.

 

Otherwise, they've performed their role rather well. It's easy to forget that, in 2010, a lot of people thought coalition government would be unworkable in this country - and it hasn't been. I don't like the policies that government has brought in, but that's because the main party elected to government was the Tories. From my perspective, it would have been a lot worse if the Tories had had a majority (a lot better from your perspective, presumably). The Lib Dems have acted quite responsibly in putting national interest before party interest to help maintain political stability in turbulent times and to help to implement roughly what the electorate voted for (much as I don't like it). Now they're likely to suffer severe damage as a political party, possibly losing half of their MPs. In a way, that's unfair, but then they knew that 2/3 of their voters incline more to the left than the right (previous polls have shown this), so they were always going to incur damage for helping the Tories. Could they have formed a coalition with Labour and others? Certainly not with Brown as PM...and probably not with some other Labour PM, if I'm honest, though it was what I was hoping for at the time. They could yet end up losing half their MPs and still in government, possibly propping up a Labour minority government or coalition next time.....I wonder what that will do for their popularity long-term, and whether Clegg will be allowed to stick around (probably not, I'm guessing, even if he keeps his seat - and Ashcroft's poll only gave him a lead of 3% despite his enormous majority, so he could yet be the "Portillo" of 2015).