Monday, January 18, 2016


I see the nice Mr Corbyn has, in an attempt to regain the initiative following a disastrous couple of weeks, proposed that a Labour government would intervene to stop companies paying dividends to their shareholders unless they themselves committed to paying their employees the so called 'living wage'.

No matter that the living wage calculation is a crock based on the notional needs of a family of four.

Looks to me to be an attempt by Corbyn to reinstate, by stealth, Clause 1V of the Labour Party constitution ... the bit about the 'common (read State) ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange ....' drafted by Sydney Webb in 1917 and repudiated at a special conference in 1995.

That, along with Corbyn's proposal to re-nationalize public utilities (rail & energy), positions Labour back to where it was at the time of their 1983 Manifesto dubbed by Gerald Kaufman, Labour MP for Manchester Gorton and currently 'Father of the House', as "the longest suicide note in history".  


Anonymous said...

Isn't it uncanny how similar the thinking of Corbyn is to the absurdities espoused by the Kiwi Labourites?


pdm said...

Cadwallader - kindred spirits.

Anonymous said...

What you do not appear to understand is that in the UK employers can legally pay way under the minimum wage (Tory initiative) and the public purse makes up the difference by way of tax credits.

As you can imagine this is hugely popular with large employers and shareholders. All Corbyn is doing is saying if you run a company that is dependent on the tax payer for survival then you are in the wrong business.

I would have thought any drain on the public purse by way benefits would meet with this blogs disapproval. Just a modicum of research would go a long way.

Lord Egbut

Anonymous said...

What you do not appear to understand is that in the UK employers can legally pay way under the minimum wage and the public purse tops it up by way of tax credits (Tory initiative). As you can imagine this is enormously popular with employers, shareholders and Tories in general.

All Corbyn is saying is that if your company's survival is dependent on the tax payer then you are in the wrong business.

I would have thought his blog would be in favour of any move to lessen the burden on the tax payer. A modicum of research goes a long way.

Lord Egbut Nobacon

The Veteran said...

Egbut ... you're talking about the minimum wage. I'm talking about the 'living wage' ... spot the diff.

Anonymous said...

No, I'm not. Corbyn is. The living wage is £8.30 PH. That buys you a cup of coffee and a piece of cake in a chain coffee shop. FTSE companies are being subsidised by the tax payer to top up the minimum wage (£6-30).

If you stop demonising the fact that socialism has had a great influence in our shared history of development and where we are today you might be more at ease with yourself.

Lord Egbut

The Veteran said...

Egbut ... I can accept that government has a role in setting a minimum wage in order to stop exploitation but to go the next step and mandate a 'living wage' which, in NZL, is calc based on the notional needs of a notional family of four is a crock and I oppose it. The stupidity of this is no better illustrated in the WCC fiasco decision which is being tested by way of judicial review.

The WCC voted in a split decision to require independent contractors working for Council to pay their employees the living wage in excess of market rates. They adjusted the contract to accommodate. One of the Councillors voting for the motion was ex Labour MP Mark Peck, owner of a coffee shop in downtown Wgtn. When asked if he was going to pay his own employees the same he demurred and said that were he to do so the business would go bust. Just how many ways to spell hypocracy?

Genuine question ... in the UK and on what basis is the living wage calculated.

Anonymous said...

The calculation is based on the Minimum Income Standard for the United Kingdom, the product of research by CRSP, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The research looks in detail at what households need in order to have a minimum acceptable standard of living. Decisions about what to include in this standard are made by groups comprising members of the public. The Living Wage is therefore rooted in social consensus about what people need to make ends meet.

The uprating of the Living Wage figure each year takes account of rises in living costs and any changes in what people define as a ‘minimum’. It also takes some account of what is happening to wages generally, to prevent a situation where Living Wage employers are required to give pay rises that are too far out of line with general pay trends.

As I pointed out the housing bubble, buy to let and the end of affordable housing leading to sky high rents has made it all bit of a joke. The living wage is now grossly underestimated and the public purse is topping up the rents of those on minimum wage through housing benefits and their wages by tax credits. On the bright side it's really good for Tory party funding as those who do benefit do not want the gravy train to hit the buffers.

Lord Egbut