NATIONAL LIVING WAGE

 Image result for what is the living wage

I found these tweets on my timeline.

21 thoughts on “NATIONAL LIVING WAGE”

        1. I used to think he was the run-of-the-mill clueless Labour Boss, but I think we’re seeing an anti-UK secret agent mole at work, striving from within to collapse the Conservative Labour Party.

          Liked by 2 people

    1. If that originated from the SLab, I just read through it and didn’t see a single tweet saying “we believe you implicitly” or “glory hallelujah, the second coming of the Labour Party Branch Office in Scotland is nigh”. Not even one.

      Liked by 2 people

  1. Re the London weighting, there’s always been one as far back as I can remember.

    I think it was probably pretty legitimate 30 years ago, but now I wonder if it’s kept on as an incitement to move there, as anyone looking around would surely see that’s there’s not that much of a difference nowadays as you say. Who knows?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I can understand that it is expensive to live in London. Just house prices/rents are horrific although I doubt that the cost of everyday items is much more.

      But if you live on one of the islands everything costs more, so if there is going to be a premium paid for living in expensive places, then the residents of Shetland or Lewis and Harris should get a look in too.

      Good point about the inducement to move there.

      Like

  2. A Labour government would seek to change the wages of the whole UK. Wales has been run by people with different politics to Richard Leonard for many years. So I suppose it might be understood that Labour is a ‘broad church’, with John McDonnell MP traditionally not having the same view on wages as Welsh centrists like Carwyn Jones. The SNP may have a persuasive narrative on wages, but it can’t rely on voters taking Wales as typical of what Corbynomics would mean if it were ever put into practice. It would be naive to think that John McDonnell has the same view of austerity as Tony Blair, in the same way that it would be foolish to attack the SNP on education without being aware of the complexity of the issue.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes. You make a fair point.

      Wages are London controlled. Despite us wanting minimum wage law devolved, they retained it.

      It was Labour who brought in a minimum wage; Thatcher have abolished minimum wages (set for each industry).

      But when he did, he brought them in at such a ridiculously low level that they were pence above the kind of wage minimums that Thatcher had abandoned.

      Even after 13 years of Labour government in England things hadn’t improved much.

      Brown did bring in working tax credits, but really, that was just used as an excuse by firms to pay less. Hey, let’s pay peanuts and let the government subsidise our company by making up wages to just enough to live on.

      Of course, maybe he will surprise us.

      Or would surprise us. He’s hardly looking olike being prime minister.

      It would be hard to find anywhere a more miserable, ineffectual, useless bag of crap prime minister than Theresa, and yet Corbyn lags behind her.

      That is almost unbelievable.

      Like

      1. It’s deplorable. We have the (UK) Tories riven by internal divisions and full of opportunistic scum driven by naked self-interest, greed and antisocial tendencies – all the half-way reasonable and even sane ones seem to have gone. There’s hardly an expletive that the Westminster regime and the Tory Party aren’t worse than.

        Labour UK are riven by internal divisions, full of opportunistic Blairitish Tory-lite scum without a principled bone in their bodies, whose only consistent policy is to not oppose the Tories, for reasons no one can understand, thereby condemning themselves to ineffectual uselessness such that they might as well not bother being there, except for lovely old dinosaurs like Dennis Skinner and a few other honourable exceptions.

        LibDems – forever tainted by the supremely opportunistic coalition with the Tories, for which they traded a platform promise of no tuition fees for a chance to hold the reins of power just occasionally for a few minutes at a time please please please. Tainted too in Scotland by Liar Carmichael – the inhabitants of our northern isles are so dead set on doing different that they’d likely vote a barnyard animal if it wore a gold rosette. Wee Wullie is hardly a politician that’s likely to set the heather ablaze either, now is he…

        If you want principle and consistency, you’re not spoiled for choice in England’n’Wales, are you – Plaid and the Greens, basically.

        We have no real civics education. Even if we did, I wonder if we would ever teach that tribalism is not a good basis for casting votes. I don’t suppose we’ll ever get rid of the mindset which in politics as in life insists that everything is a zero-sum game, or the attitude that your own feeling of worth and importance depends on denigrating some subset of other people and treating them like sh*it to the extent possible.

        I look forward to news that the Republicans have been trounced, routed, crushed, roundly rejected, overwhelmed by a blue tsunami, cast into a nether hell, sentenced to an eternity in the wilderness, run out of town on rails, tarred and feathered, shellacked, consigned to internment camps called “gated communities”, and afflicted with plagues of boils.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Interesting that you mention Civics in Education.

          We did have it in school when I were a lad…

          But it’s hard to imagine it being even possible now with the UK being such a divided society.

          Who could be trusted to teach it in a reasonable way.

          In fairness, I know I couldn’t.

          Like

          1. There’s a more fundamental problem with teaching civics in the UK, and that is that in our constitution-free democracy there is very little that makes real sense under close examination.

            [Begin digression HERE.] One example is that the principle of ultimate sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament – indeed, the philosophy underpinning “sovereignty” in England’n’Wales as a whole – is bonkers. It makes no more sense than the Holy Trinity, and cannot hold a candle to the Enlightenment concept of popular sovereignty that has general acceptance in Scotland, as in any reasonable democracy.

            An English friend expressed puzzlement recently about the stooshie over the second independence referendum, suggesting that Theresa May has more authority than Nicola Sturgeon, surely? To which my reply was “Not in Scotland, she doesn’t”. Of course, my English friend did not know that the decision was the First Minister’s alone, because she did not know that the current Scottish Government was elected on a campaign promise / manifesto commitment that involved just such a referendum in just such circumstances as were explicitly set forth in that manifesto. Nor did she know that the Scottish Parliament had backed her by 69:59.

            The Usual Suspects in the British Establishment and the Great British Meeja Machine naturally failed to understand the significance of that last, as usual. It is not even a deliberate failure to understand, I believe, it’s a fundamental failure of comprehension and imagination conditioned by a fundamentally mistaken concept of the nature of the UK itself – i.e., that it is England with small and unimportant twiddly bits tacked on, a unitary State with only one Parliament of any real significance and power.

            We Scots let them get away with it for far too long, ever since we were made part of this misbegotten Union at a time when very few people indeed could be said to have modern notions of liberal democracy. However – now even Westminster itself has recognized the Claim of Right, even though very clearly it has not recognized the implications of it.

            I went on in that vein to my English correspondent, and if she bothered to read to the end she would have seen me allude to the right to national self-determination which the UK, as a founder Member, signed up to along with the United Nations Charter.

            In other words, Theresa May may think she can say yea or nay to a second Scottish independence referendum, the Usual Suspects in the British Establishment may think so, and even the Supreme Court of the UK may think so – but they’d be wrong. (“Ooooh, get him!” I hear you cry.) The Supreme Court of the UK would be wrong to think so for the same reason that the Supreme Court of Spain is wrong over Catalunya, and the Supreme Court of the UK would not even have the paltry excuse of a problematic provision in the Spanish Constitution to fall back on, a provision that was unlawful under international law in force on Spain even as it was passed into Spanish domestic law.

            Now, the legalities are one thing, the politics another – and our principle is clear, and simple, and just: the Scottish people want no more than is our due, no more than is our right, the burden of proof is on the opposition.

            It irritates me beyond belief that Scotland can vote yes in 1975, yes to Europe in 2014 as the opposition itself said that was the only way to stay in the EU (it was never true, but that was their claim, and by God we should hold them to it), in 2016 we voted to stay in Europe, and at no point in these proceedings did we ever vote for a Tory Government. And yet the Yoons still bleat that the 2014 result to stay in the UK has to stand, even though no other commitment that accompanied that result does. Democracy my ar*se.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. Sheesh… “did not know that the decision was NOT the First Minister’s alone…”

              I’m getting over the disappointment of the Republicans’ voter suppression efforts succeeding in denying Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams the governorships of Florida and Georgia. Excuse me while I spit.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Totally.

              I was interested to read somewhere, incidentally, that in the Good Friday Agreement, a generation is designated as 7 years.

              So even if we could be held to Alex’s statement that it was a chance in a generation… by 2021, the generation will be past.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. That’s another thing that annoys me about some of our Yoon brethern – when they keep bleating on about Alex’s “once in a generation” thing: (a) it was never party politicy, or even policy at all; (b) circumstances have changed, radically, and at Holyrood our Government was elected on a manifest allowing for just such an independence referendum in just such circumstances as those caused by the out-of-control Westminster regime.

                I want to say to them, as they said to us, so often, GET OVER IT! Oh well, nothing is going to stop them bleating on about 2014 in exactly the same sort of way the Ludge bleat on and on about 1690, conveniently forgetting all but one salient fact about the event in question.

                So I might as well save my breath.

                Liked by 1 person

  3. I wonder if the young person on the right has any idea that the smirking punter on his right is on £60 odd thousand a year plus expenses. And gets much much longer holidays, freebies, perks etc. How many hours would anyone have to work on £8.75 an hour to make dikies money .

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.