Are the Tories finished before they start?

[barcode]

Why, then, is she removed from her crypt and rolled around like Hanibal Lecter on a trolley for every subsequent election since she was ousted?

Without an approving nod from Thatcher, isn't it the case that no one in the party can be elected leader?

Thus explains Ian Duncan smith and Kenneth clack

[Chie]

From the booklet:

Eight years ago, in a famous interview on David Frost’s sofa, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair committed the Labour government to matching European levels of health spending. Today, that pledge has been
delivered.

Alas it NOT been delivered! we are sitting at 8.4% Its still low compared to many other parts, I still believe spending should still be going up! to at least 9.0% - 10% it would not make a difference to this report.

strange thing is when it comes to health many other country spend more than us... and there have better system.

No you've missed the point (in fact I doubt you read beyond that last sentence because you don't seem to realise that Labour did manage to match the European average on heathcare spending.. but then Labour only does average and mediocre anyway..) It's about reforming the system to save money and time that's currently being wasted, not throwing more into the NHS and seeing what happens. Although I'm sure the NHS will still be getting more money when the recession ends.

[MVMeboTwo]

What it is up to the Conservatives to do now, in my opinion, is spell out in black and white exactly what they plan to do when they regain power. This is what I think is holding them back from an even bigger lead in the polls.

Quite. I've changed my political leanings (and vote) over the course of my adulthood, so I'm open to persuasion - but without hearing their vision (never mind some policy), I'm only left with the personalities, and their attitude on issues.

There's a couple of issues I'd like to address. If it takes a top salary, say £100k+ to encourage the best people, then fine. The country can bear those salaries - I mean MPs pay is a teeny drop in the ocean of public money. But I hold my own view about those who would say "I don't believe in the job enough to accept a lower income than being a company director".

Taking the job and bitching about the pay after you've been caught fiddling your expense account wouldn't be stood for in any office I've ever worked in. I think that's outrageous. Perhaps that's just my sense of ethics.

And that's the second thing.

There's an inference from both Chie and yourself that the tories hold the monopoly on a strong work ethic or sense of personal responsibility - very much the rhetoric of Thatcher back in the day.

It jars deeply with me, because my work ethic is as strong as anyone's, and right now I would say it knocks Mr Duncan's into a cocked hat.

I think its possible to hold such an ethic, and still see the need for social justice. Things like the minimum wage help to keep people out of poverty. I know people who benefited from its introduction - and it didn't cause thousands of business to struggle or close as the conservative party said it would. In their 17 years of government the gap between the rich and poor became grossly wide. Many workers were below the poverty line. Poverty, in its realest terms, in Britain should be unthinkable to right minded people.

That was one of the policies Labour said they would deliver in 97, and that's why I voted for them at that time.

Soon as Cameron sets out his agenda I'll be able to mull it over.

I hope that the Tories are not finished. The fact is that the minimum wage has caused thousands of businesses to struggle and many have indeed closed, it has also contributed to the very high level of unemployment that the UK has. The true unemployment figure currently stands at around 6 million, the highest unemployment figure the UK has ever had. Before they came to power in 1997 The Labour Party said unemployment would go down to zero well it hasn't so Labour have got it wrong.

[Pete]

oh hello ross revenge, not like you to mention labour's unemployment figures.

what? no "please visit radio caroline and conservatives.com" signature? trying to catch us out are you?

cretin.

[Gavin Scott]

I hope that the Tories are not finished. The fact is that the minimum wage has caused thousands of businesses to struggle and many have indeed closed, it has also contributed to the very high level of unemployment that the UK has. The true unemployment figure currently stands at around 6 million, the highest unemployment figure the UK has ever had. Before they came to power in 1997 The Labour Party said unemployment would go down to zero well it hasn't so Labour have got it wrong.

Well for a start, the tories were the forefathers of number manipulation, with the introduction of "seasonally adjusted unemployment figures", and the dropping off the register when one passed a certain time out of work. Every successive Government has continued to use the airbrushed figures, as would the tories again. If your assertion were correct, do you really think Cameron would say, "Actually, folks, now I'm PM I can tell you there's 6 million unemployed"?

Just you make a mental note of that one yourself should that day come.

Following the last Conservative Government’s abolition of the Wages Councils in 1993, some British workers were routinely paid less than £2 an hour.

Its introduction in 1999 at a rate of £3.60 per hour gave over 2 million workers an immediate pay rise. 10 years later and it stands at £5.80 an hour.

You can live on that money. Not easily or comfortably, but you can do it. Isn't that a reasonable expectation of British employers?

Show me how you can live on, say, £3.10 an hour in Britain - unless you live in poverty.

You know, its all well and good to wear a wristband to "make poverty history" in poorer countries. I wore one - maybe you did too.

But you would tear up the minimum wage and see millions of working people in Britain drop below the poverty line?

There's currently a tory bill on the table - The Employment Opportunities Bill. It seeks to abolish the national minimum wage. 11 tories are backing it.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch)
Peter Bone (Wellingborough, Northants)
Philip Davies (Shipley, West Yorkshire)
Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley, Wales)
Greg Knight (Yorkshire East)
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Lincolnshire)
Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater, Somerset)
Brian Binley (Northampton South, Northants)
William Cash (Stone, Staffs)
Robert Syms (Poole, Dorset)
David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Surrey)

Cameron refuses to distance himself from this bill - so if you want the minimum wage abolished, he's the man to do it.

For you, these are largely rhetorical questions, Ross Revenge, as you are banned again - ass.

[Chie]

Well for a start, the tories were the forefathers of number manipulation, with the introduction of "seasonally adjusted unemployment figures", and the dropping off the register when one passed a certain time out of work. Every successive Government has continued to use the airbrushed figures, as would the tories again. If your assertion were correct, do you really think Cameron would say, "Actually, folks, now I'm PM I can tell you there's 6 million unemployed"?

So the Conservatives invented it but Labour continue to use it, even though they have a choice not to! That's not really the Conservatives fault then, is it??

Its introduction in 1999 at a rate of £3.60 per hour gave over 2 million workers an immediate pay rise. 10 years later and it stands at £5.80 an hour.

And the price of everything also went up accordingly.

You can live on that money. Not easily or comfortably, but you can do it. Isn't that a reasonable expectation of British employers?

Show me how you can live on, say, £3.10 an hour in Britain - unless you live in poverty.

Lots of people could. People who still live with their parents or live with a high earning partner. I'd be willing to accept £3.10 an hour right now - at least it's something.

How do you personally define poverty anyway? I'd say as long as you can afford three meals a day, household bills and a reasonable wardrobe of clothes, then you're ok.

You know, its all well and good to wear a wristband to "make poverty history" in poorer countries. I wore one - maybe you did too.

But you would tear up the minimum wage and see millions of working people in Britain drop below the poverty line?

It would be bad because the price of everything wouldn't go down again!

I wouldn't want to get rid of the minimum wage anyway. However, there have been some negative aspects to it.

[barcode]

I'd be willing to accept £3.10 an hour right now - at least it's something.

How do you personally define poverty anyway? I'd say as long as you can afford three meals a day, household bills and a reasonable wardrobe of clothes, then you're ok.

Better you than me, because you would be better off on benafits!

[Sput]

I'd be willing to accept £3.10 an hour right now - at least it's something.

How do you personally define poverty anyway? I'd say as long as you can afford three meals a day, household bills and a reasonable wardrobe of clothes, then you're ok.

MATHS TIME
Let's say you don't live for free and pay an unrealistic £200/month rent, £100/month bills, £100/month food, £50/month council tax and you work 37 hours a week @ £3.10/hour. That gives you around £480 a month. Oh well, no nice wardrobe for you.

At any rate, poverty has a definition relative to the average family income in the UK, so I don't know where you're getting your ideas about it being subjective.

[Gavin Scott]

Well for a start, the tories were the forefathers of number manipulation, with the introduction of "seasonally adjusted unemployment figures", and the dropping off the register when one passed a certain time out of work. Every successive Government has continued to use the airbrushed figures, as would the tories again. If your assertion were correct, do you really think Cameron would say, "Actually, folks, now I'm PM I can tell you there's 6 million unemployed"?

So the Conservatives invented it but Labour continue to use it, even though they have a choice not to! That's not really the Conservatives fault then, is it??

My point was just that ALL Governments use the figures which sound better. Tory and Labour - so Ross Revenge's point is moot, because Cameron isn't going to be the one to change that.

Its introduction in 1999 at a rate of £3.60 per hour gave over 2 million workers an immediate pay rise. 10 years later and it stands at £5.80 an hour.

And the price of everything also went up accordingly.

Prove it.

The price, for example, of a McDonald's burger didn't go up. McDonald's are one of the largest employers of people on or near the minimum wage. They have more outlets than they had then, and their prices have decreased. I'm sure their operating margin decreased (i.e. they made less profit on each sale), but the minimum wage put more money into the economy as people had a little bit more disposable income. More disposable income = more sales.

You can live on that money. Not easily or comfortably, but you can do it. Isn't that a reasonable expectation of British employers?

Show me how you can live on, say, £3.10 an hour in Britain - unless you live in poverty.

Lots of people could. People who still live with their parents or live with a high earning partner. I'd be willing to accept £3.10 an hour right now - at least it's something.

But you live with your parents, Chie. You don't have household bills.

You can't really suggest that the MILLIONS of people who are at the low end of the scale should move back to their parents or land themselves a high earning partner.

How do you personally define poverty anyway? I'd say as long as you can afford three meals a day, household bills and a reasonable wardrobe of clothes, then you're ok.

I don't define it - there is an official measure.

One in five British children think not owning a mobile phone is a sign of being poor, according to research commissioned by child poverty campaigners and Community Service Volunteers.

Other findings include the revelation that 44 per cent of children think not being able to afford to go on a school trip demonstrates poverty.

The official definition of the poverty line in Britain is any family living on less than 60 per cent of the median income, which is measured by halving the difference between the highest and lowest incomes.

But lets break down that figure that you would be happy to work for - and what you need to spend in order to live (note - I said "live", not "survive").

£550 p/m for rent, council tax, gas and electric (unless its a cold winter, then its nearer £600)
£30 p/m for a telephone line and a TV licence (no broadband, cable package or mobile phone)
£80 p/m for food (I know people spend more than I do on that, but I've got it down to a fine art)

That comes to £660 per month - and there's no money there for clothes, contact lenses, cigarettes, a bottle of wine and DVD rental, never mind a night out in the pub with pals.

You need to work 212 hours a month (more actually, because we didn't include your tax or National Insurance in your £3.10 per hour). That's 53.5 hours per week. A standard working week is between 35 and 40 hours.

53.5 hours - and you can't buy anything other than your measure of "3 meals a day and household bills" - certainly not a "wardrobe of clothes".

Council houses are cheaper - if you can get one. the private rental I am quoting is about the best value you will find on the open market - and that is a fact.

So you begin to see that £3.10 per hour in Britain won't get you far - not even as far as your basic list of requirements, and you would be working 7 days a week to achieve that.

I'm glad to hear that you don't want the NMW abolished - but the tory party bill allows for people to "opt out" - as in, sign away their rights to it because they as desperate for a job.

Be under no illusions though - if it were abolished, prices would NOT come down. Prices didn't decrease when the wages councils were abolished - but large (and small) unscrupulous employers made more profit. You wouldn't see prices on the high street reflect that.

Not that you'd be on the high street anyway, as you'd have nothing to spend on it.

Its easier to say "well its something", when you have the safety net of someone else supporting you - be it a partner or parents. Not all of us have those things, so you should have that in mind when you are deciding on matters which affect millions of others.

[Mr Q]

Hi guys. Somebody asked me to drop in, so let me just offer some food for thought.

If working for £3.10 an hour is so bad, surely nobody would want to. In which case, there would actually be no need for a minimum wage, since nobody would work for such a small amount. The point is that some people would actually be willing to take a job that pays that much. And imposing a minimum wage actually denies them that opportunity.

Of course, that's not a problem if everyone who wants a job at £3.10 can get it at the (higher) minimum wage. But they can't - because employers simply won't offer the same number of jobs. There is a market for labour - businesses demand workers, and we supply our services. But when the price of virtually anything goes up, the quantity people demand of it will fall. Labour included.

The effect of a minimum wage is to raise the cost of labour in some segments of the market. Ensuring people get paid a 'fair' amount is an entirely noble goal - I appreciate the intent of the policy. And it works for some people (that is, those who can still get a job at the higher minimum wage). But for others, it denies them a chance of a job at all. Minimum wages ensure that there is a level of unemployment in the economy. I think people conveniently forget this point.

To clarify: I certainly agree that poverty is undesirable, and also that there is scope for governments to alleviate it. I also accept those earning £3.10 an hour are going to find life difficult - I don't intend to justify living on that sort of wage, because I couldn't. But the point is that those who can't find a job at all will find life even harder still. I don't think locking people out of the jobs market is an effective remedy for poverty.

[Sput]

Of course, that's not a problem if everyone who wants a job at £3.10 can get it at the (higher) minimum wage. But they can't - because employers simply won't offer the same number of jobs. There is a market for labour - businesses demand workers, and we supply our services. But when the price of virtually anything goes up, the quantity people demand of it will fall. Labour included.

The effect of a minimum wage is to raise the cost of labour in some segments of the market. Ensuring people get paid a 'fair' amount is an entirely noble goal - I appreciate the intent of the policy. And it works for some people (that is, those who can still get a job at the higher minimum wage). But for others, it denies them a chance of a job at all. Minimum wages ensure that there is a level of unemployment in the economy. I think people conveniently forget this point.

Ah, there's your economic theorist view, but is that idea borne out in the data? I don't seem to think there was any rise in employment or prices in a stepwise manner with the introduction of the minimum wage. I realise of course that it might not be such a linear relationship, and it might have affected some metric like "job security in tough times" but has there been a measurable effect on employment?