Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

I simply find it amusing that you’re banging on about the rights of the working man, in relation to travel, whilst having an 18 grand bike sat in your garage that I assume you use just for fun and to pull stunt wheelies?

Youre hardly Wedgewood Benn are you Nick?

 

I think you're really barking up the wrong tree if you're trying to make a point.

 

3 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

I think he's mistaken me for somebody who only holds political opinions that suit their own interests.

 

Hmm, theres a name for those people... 

Does it begin with 'T'?

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

No it isn’t. It just reminds me of ‘two jags’

 

 

It most certainly is.

 

You're implying that only the economically disadvantaged can care about poverty.

[Rogstanley]

What a guy.

 

 

[Guest Col city fan]

12 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

It most certainly is.

 

You're implying that only the economically disadvantaged can care about poverty.

 

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Col city fan said:

 

 

Your posting is becoming increasingly bizarre, Col.

 

Maybe you should stick to football.

[Guest Col city fan]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Your posting is becoming increasingly bizarre, Col.

 

Maybe you should stick to football.

 

[Strokes]

40 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

 

Does it begin with 'T'?

Toddy?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

1 hour ago, Col city fan said:

So says the bloke who buys motorbikes for fun that must cost 12 grand new?!

#hyprocritesrus.com

 

So does this mean you think rail prices are acceptable in general? 

 

Or that hat there should be a surcharge for people who own motorbikes for fun?

 

Is there really a link to someone owning a motorbike and the cost of rail fares?

[HighPeakFox]

Spectacular effort at linkage there by @Col city fan. Top marks for blustering irrelevance.

[Guest Col city fan]

2 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Spectacular effort at linkage there by @Col city fan. Top marks for blustering irrelevance.

I thank you! I've not got top marks since the 5th grade!

 

[SMX11]

1 hour ago, Rogstanley said:

What a guy.

 

 

King Corbyn will make everything magically fair again by taxing those wealthy bankers so very hard. I think I have read this story before......it doesn't end the way you think.

[Carl the Llama]

The bike envy is real.

[HighPeakFox]

4 minutes ago, SMX11 said:

King Corbyn will make everything magically fair again by taxing those wealthy bankers so very hard. I think I have read this story before......it doesn't end the way you think.

Whatever you think of his policies, what he says is largely correct.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, SMX11 said:

King Corbyn will make everything magically fair again by taxing those wealthy bankers so very hard. I think I have read this story before......it doesn't end the way you think.

Much better to keep reducing their taxes until we have nothing left to spend on schools and hospitals. Yay, three cheers for pay as you go politics!

[HighPeakFox]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Much better to keep reducing their taxes until we have nothing left to spend on schools and hospitals. Yay, three cheers for pay as you go politics!

You're doing it all wrong mate - sneering is the way to win arguments these days. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

40 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

I thank you! I've not got top marks since the 5th grade!

 

 

American? 

[Buce]

 

Minimum wage would be £26,000 per annum if rate matched executive pay rises:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/31/minimum-wage-26000-pounds-if-rises-matched-executive-pay

 

The disparity in pay between those at the top and bottom of the earnings ladder is revealed by analysis showing the national minimum wage would be £5.24 an hour higher if it had risen at the same rate as a FTSE 100 chief executive’s pay over the last two decades.

With 2018 marking the 20th anniversary of legislation that heralded the minimum wage, research by the GMB union underscores by just how much the statutory pay floor has failed to keep pace with executive earnings.

It shows that if increases in the national minimum wage had kept pace with a chief executive it would be £12.74 an hour compared with £7.50 now for those 25 years and older. For a worker aged over 25 on 40 hours per week this would equate to £26,000 a year compared with the £14,664 they are currently paid.

 

The disclosure will intensify the debate about the yawning gap between the best and worst paid. Analysis published last week by the Vlerick Business School, based on 2016 data, found that chief executives of FTSE 100 companies receive on average 94 times more than the average employee. The average FTSE 100 company chief saw an 11% rise in their median total pay between 2015 and 2016.

Calculations by the High Pay Centre confirm that the average FTSE 100 chief is now paid £4.35m a year – compared with £1.23m when the national minimum wage came in – an increase of 354%.

“The national minimum wage was a hugely important step for working people in this country and its anniversary should be a cause for celebration of how far we’ve come,” said Tim Roache, GMB general secretary. “But this 20th birthday risks being marred by the growing pay gap between workers and company bosses.”

Every year the High Pay Centre highlights “fat cat day” when the average FTSE 100 chief executive will have already been paid the same as the average UK worker earns in a whole year. In 2018 the day falls on 4 January.

Stefan Stern, director of the High Pay Centre, said: “It’s striking that the national minimum wage came in just as executive pay really started to spiral up and out of control. The pay gap has grown ever since, with terrible consequences. There are two ways to close this unacceptable and unjustifiable gap: one is to have more restraint at the top, and the other is to have the long overdue pay rise that lower paid workers deserve. We need rapid progress at both ends of the income scale.”

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Minimum wage would be £26,000 per annum if rate matched executive pay rises:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/31/minimum-wage-26000-pounds-if-rises-matched-executive-pay

 

The disparity in pay between those at the top and bottom of the earnings ladder is revealed by analysis showing the national minimum wage would be £5.24 an hour higher if it had risen at the same rate as a FTSE 100 chief executive’s pay over the last two decades.

With 2018 marking the 20th anniversary of legislation that heralded the minimum wage, research by the GMB union underscores by just how much the statutory pay floor has failed to keep pace with executive earnings.

It shows that if increases in the national minimum wage had kept pace with a chief executive it would be £12.74 an hour compared with £7.50 now for those 25 years and older. For a worker aged over 25 on 40 hours per week this would equate to £26,000 a year compared with the £14,664 they are currently paid.

 

The disclosure will intensify the debate about the yawning gap between the best and worst paid. Analysis published last week by the Vlerick Business School, based on 2016 data, found that chief executives of FTSE 100 companies receive on average 94 times more than the average employee. The average FTSE 100 company chief saw an 11% rise in their median total pay between 2015 and 2016.

Calculations by the High Pay Centre confirm that the average FTSE 100 chief is now paid £4.35m a year – compared with £1.23m when the national minimum wage came in – an increase of 354%.

“The national minimum wage was a hugely important step for working people in this country and its anniversary should be a cause for celebration of how far we’ve come,” said Tim Roache, GMB general secretary. “But this 20th birthday risks being marred by the growing pay gap between workers and company bosses.”

Every year the High Pay Centre highlights “fat cat day” when the average FTSE 100 chief executive will have already been paid the same as the average UK worker earns in a whole year. In 2018 the day falls on 4 January.

Stefan Stern, director of the High Pay Centre, said: “It’s striking that the national minimum wage came in just as executive pay really started to spiral up and out of control. The pay gap has grown ever since, with terrible consequences. There are two ways to close this unacceptable and unjustifiable gap: one is to have more restraint at the top, and the other is to have the long overdue pay rise that lower paid workers deserve. We need rapid progress at both ends of the income scale.”

How anybody can say this isn't unjust I just don't know. But I'm sure I won't have to wait long for either strokes or webbo to turn up.

 

4th Jan ffs.

[Rogstanley]

32 minutes ago, toddybad said:

How anybody can say this isn't unjust I just don't know. But I'm sure I won't have to wait long for either strokes or webbo to turn up.

 

4th Jan ffs.

Because rich people are special and deserve their special salaries. We must be careful not to upset them or they'll move abroad and take their special abilities with them.

[SMX11]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

Whatever you think of his policies, what he says is largely correct.

Sure, he is playing the 'outsider' card but unfortunately I can't ignore his policies because he mistakenly believes that the supposed issue of wealth distribution can be corrected using force and coercion. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, SMX11 said:

Sure, he is playing the 'outsider' card but unfortunately I can't ignore his policies because he mistakenly believes that the supposed issue of wealth distribution can be corrected using force and coercion. 

So how exactly do you think it can be dealt with if not via taxation or legislation? 

[SMX11]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

So how exactly do you think it can be dealt with if not via taxation or legislation? 

Very difficult question. The biggest issue for me is that we have had a system where lobbying and cronyism is particularly effective. So I would try to eradicate the effectiveness of it by removing the power from politicians and quangos. Hopefully leaving the EU will help with this but the major reason why it is effective is the nature of modern governments prescriptive regulation and wanting to directly 'help' special interest groups. This gives big business the incentive to capture this regulation to benefit themselves. The government needs to develop and maintain 'law' i.e. general rules and not legislation which generally involves highly detailed measures that attempt to satisfy special interest groups. 

 

The whole scope of government needs to be reassessed. Every single issue has now been politicised because the government has the ability and desire to interfere in all aspects of life.

 

The only way I can think of attempting to do this would be by adding constitutional constraints on the parliament to reduce the absolute nature of it. 

 

Alas turkeys don't vote from Christmas so I can't see any of these changes happen in normal political times.

 

 

[nnfox]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

How anybody can say this isn't unjust I just don't know. But I'm sure I won't have to wait long for either strokes or webbo to turn up.

 

4th Jan ffs.

It is a difficult situation but there are no easy fixes.  If a company pays its top executives massive wages, then that is a matter for them and the shareholders. I'm not sure I would turn down a big pay packet if it was offered to me.  In my opinion the unjust element of fat cat pay is where the CEO gets a huge salary despite the company making big losses and workers being made redundant. 

 

As far as raising minimum wage in line with top pay, I'm not sure how that would work in reality.  I mean, if a warehouse worker, burger flipper or shelf stacker got paid as much as a nurse, then you would soon have no nurses left.  So you would have to raise everybody's pay to a level that keeps them off the bottom of the pay ladder.  If everybody's pay was elevated, then everyone would have more money, meaning companies would charge more for goods and services, meaning bigger profits and even bigger pay for the ones at the top and so the cycle continues.

 

 

[HighPeakFox]

Saying things that are morally just isn't playing the 'outsider' card. It is an attempt to remind us all that the basic poltics of c**tiness isn't ok in the name of business, or indeed anything else.

[Guest Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

How anybody can say this isn't unjust I just don't know. But I'm sure I won't have to wait long for either strokes or webbo to turn up.

 

4th Jan ffs.

 

I wouldn't stick up for the amount some CEOs get paid, its absurd just like footballers or anyone that makes that much aside from entrepreneurs etc. But I also think its daft to compare it to the minimum wage, though I do appreciate sensible ratios are important, but similarly arbitrary government enforced ratios is not the solution. I say this for two reasons. A CEO has a lot more scope, potential, and are more likely to add actual individual value to a company than a minimum wage worker for which it makes sense to reward them for. Take David Potts at Morrisons, since he came in they have recorded 8 consecutive quarters of sales growth and the share price has risen far above his pay rises. It's widely accepted he's done a good job to the benefit of everyone involved. A big part of the problem lies in Long Term Incentive Plans (they are admirable in trying to create more long-term thinking) which deliver CEOs big bonus' and share awards which inflate the pay figures that make the headlines. Jeff Fairburn has benefited from this at Persimmon, given him massive pay rises because Persimmon has been flying. It's nothing he's done particularly though, it's because of the mess that is Help to Buy and a ridiculous housing market in general. It's often too formulaic. This is where it's a problem, but the new code of governance at least seeks to address this. It states that boards should exercise discretion rather than adhering to the formula. Basically, boards should consider whether a bonus/pay has been inflated for reasons unconnected to management decisions. It doesn't force them to use discretion but at least boards will have to report whether they used discretion, which should lead to investors forcing the issue. 

 

And secondly (albeit I've muddled it all) the reason it is incomparable is because CEO pay is set closer to how pay should be, by a remuneration committee close to the matter and then voted on by investors. The exact problem with the minimum wage, in my opinion, is the fact its centralised at government level. No bargaining or anything, just a figure plucked out of the air. It's a similar problem with public sector wages, arbitrary pay cap from the central government when it's better to delegate to those closer to the issue, give them a budget and make it work. And those on minimum wage haven't done bad from pay rises recently, but the people it hurts is the people just above minimum wage who get dragged into the minimum wage, becoming relatively worse off. It's effectively tacit collusion by firms to keep wages down until the minimum wage mops everyone up. This is where Norway, Denmark, and Sweden (again) do it well, none of them have a centralised minimum wage but decentralise power for sectoral bargaining (Norway includes local government in the bargaining process). Similar principle in Germany, but government has a much bigger role and there's a more longstanding agreement to keep wage rises down. Of course this requires strong trade unions and employee associations, for which I, and I'm sure nobody has a problem with. But there's a difference between what they do elsewhere and centralising the power with Len McCluskey and a return to the unions of the 70s. All that is is giving monopoly power to trade unions, with no benefit to workers.