Ken Loach Speaks Out

[River Don]

It's very tricky this. The inflation we see is cost push, arising from pressure on limited supplies of fuel, principally Nat gas but also oil and coal.

China is competing with Europe for gas supplies from Russia as they try to ramp up production after the pandemic. Russia is itself increasingly concerned about reaching a peak in gas production and will eventually begin to prioritise its own supply.

Personally I think we're heading for a global energy crunch this winter. My guess is when gas becomes too expensive manufacturing will simply stop. There are signs it's already begining in China.

https://wolfstreet.com/2021/09/26/suppliers-in-china-for-apple-tesla-intel-nvidia-qualcomm-nxp-infineon-ase-tech-forced-to-halt-production-amid-chinas-energy-crackdown/

That will then cause another financial crisis.

It would be unwise to try and anticipate future inflation levels. It's likely to be volatile.

One thing is sure, we can take this BoE talk of a potential interest rate rise with a pinch of salt. It would crash the already weak economy.

[SydneyRover]

What are your intentions should labour win the next election Mr McDonald?

I am/labour is going to help the working poor.

How are you going to do that Mr McDonald?

I am going to resign from the labour party front bench?

Oh right

[albie]

The bigger impact on median earnings is from disproportionate rises in salaries at the top end.

This is another variable in play on the median wage issue....the possibility of controls on high salaries.

If the impact of large increases in earnings at the top end are offset against increases for the low paid, the possibility of inflation is reduced.

I don't know what Labour proposes in terms of high earners other than marginal tax increases.

The 15% demand is from the Trade Unions, the organisations which fund the Labour Party. It is intended to reclaim ground lost over recent years of below inflation settlements.

As a percentage increase on a baseline pay rates way below the level of inflation over time, it seems very modest to me. Compare the buying power of earnings in 2010 to today to get a metric.

15% of below subsistence pay is still unlikely to remove all in work poverty.

Subsidising low wage employers via the benefits system seems to me the wrong answer to the wrong question.

Keith seems to have changed his mind;
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1442549278145089543/photo/1

It was good enough for him in 2019.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie

Wages at the top end have zero effect on MEDIAN wages. Median means the mid point if you out every number in rank order.

Here's a question. If a minimum wage of £15 is a designing issue for MacDonald, why didn't he resign in 2019 when Corbyn's policy was to increase the minimum wage to £10.

If Starmer was supporting a £15 minimum wage, he was demonstrating a lack of understanding of basic economics. You simply cannot have a minimum wage at the level of the median wage without automatically pushing up ALL wages around the median. Which raises the median. And raises inflation. Thereby destroying the effect you wanted to produce. It's not what you and the Left want to hear, but this HAS to be done slowly. And as I say, in the meantime you address poverty by working benefits.

[SydneyRover]

The bigger impact on median earnings is from disproportionate rises in salaries at the top end.

This is another variable in play on the median wage issue....the possibility of controls on high salaries.

If the impact of large increases in earnings at the top end are offset against increases for the low paid, the possibility of inflation is reduced.

I don't know what Labour proposes in terms of high earners other than marginal tax increases.

The 15% demand is from the Trade Unions, the organisations which fund the Labour Party. It is intended to reclaim ground lost over recent years of below inflation settlements.

As a percentage increase on a baseline pay rates way below the level of inflation over time, it seems very modest to me. Compare the buying power of earnings in 2010 to today to get a metric.

15% of below subsistence pay is still unlikely to remove all in work poverty.

Subsidising low wage employers via the benefits system seems to me the wrong answer to the wrong question.

Keith seems to have changed his mind;
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1442549278145089543/photo/1

It was good enough for him in 2019.

Isn't it a bit disingenuous to be calling for starmer to support the same things after an election as he did leading up to an election where labour got absolutely smashed?

Added:

You may wish to reflect about that example explaining what insanity is Albie.

[albie]

BST,

Yes, you are right.
I am talking about MEAN, not MEDIAN.

That said, I do not see why wage capping high earners would not compensate for increasing incomes at the lower end, those who need benefit top ups because they do not earn a living wage.

The point about 2019 policy is that we are further down the road now, and the need to improve the minimum wage is greater. Prices of basic commodities are rising, and will continue to do so in the mid term.

Many people do not qualify for the benefit support as top up that you advocate. Ask anyone who has had to apply for Universal Credit if it is a functional system...it is not!

The £10 minimum wage is the same as the Tories have supported. Where is the incentive to support Labour if you are in one of the vulnerable groups?

[albie]

Sydney,

"Isn't it a bit disingenuous to be calling for starmer to support the same things after an election as he did leading up to an election where labour got absolutely smashed?

Added:

You may wish to reflect about that example explaining what insanity is Albie."

No, it is disingenuous of Starmer to pretend to support low paid workers in 2019, then reverse his position as Labour leader.

As has been explained before, Labour got more votes in 2017 and 2019 than in 2010...that is not smashed, it is an effect of FPTP.

I don't know what your added point is about!

[SydneyRover]

Sydney,

"Isn't it a bit disingenuous to be calling for starmer to support the same things after an election as he did leading up to an election where labour got absolutely smashed?

Added:

You may wish to reflect about that example explaining what insanity is Albie."

No, it is disingenuous of Starmer to pretend to support low paid workers in 2019, then reverse his position as Labour leader.

As has been explained before, Labour got more votes in 2017 and 2019 than in 2010...that is not smashed, it is an effect of FPTP.

I don't know what your added point is about!

You're over egging it Albie, what proof have you that he pretended to do anything (an aside, whatever starmer said before the election pales into insignificance to what the tories have failed to follow through on) starmer has not reversed his position he's changed it.

You know, it's almost as if you want to set impossible targets and then stand by and hope he fails.

If you don't see 2019 as being smashed then you really don't know what smashed means Albie, let's be honest.

Failure is hard to take and in this case extremely hard to take (just look at the football forum) but the adults in the room understand that you have to take it on the chin, step up again and try harder, if it's important to you that is.

Added, meaning: Doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

[BigH]

The bigger impact on median earnings is from disproportionate rises in salaries at the top end.

This is another variable in play on the median wage issue....the possibility of controls on high salaries.

If the impact of large increases in earnings at the top end are offset against increases for the low paid, the possibility of inflation is reduced.

I don't know what Labour proposes in terms of high earners other than marginal tax increases.

The 15% demand is from the Trade Unions, the organisations which fund the Labour Party. It is intended to reclaim ground lost over recent years of below inflation settlements.

As a percentage increase on a baseline pay rates way below the level of inflation over time, it seems very modest to me. Compare the buying power of earnings in 2010 to today to get a metric.

15% of below subsistence pay is still unlikely to remove all in work poverty.

Subsidising low wage employers via the benefits system seems to me the wrong answer to the wrong question.

Keith seems to have changed his mind;
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1442549278145089543/photo/1

It was good enough for him in 2019.

Well this is 2021 and we're the other side of Brexit and a pandemic for f***s sake.

The world changes, circumstances change. If politicians don't change with the times then they're screwed. Or called Jeremy Corbyn.

[albie]

Agree with your first point, BigH.

The pandemic and its after effects is precisely why wage levels need to be boosted to living wage levels, to compensate for lower earnings and rises in cost of living.

Living Wage standards are here;
https://www.livingwage.org.uk/what-real-living-wage
We are talking about where we want to be in 2024, not now.

Labour went on LBC this morning to explain;
https://twitter.com/i/status/1442810266677284864

Syd,
Proof....listen to the video!
https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1442549322638319623
"£15 per hour, just asking for the basics."

I still don't see why people think Statutory Sick Pay should be below Living Wage levels, but some on the right think differently.

[scawsby steve]

I'm an angry old man, so angry I'm damn well going to do ................... nothing

You don't have to do anything, Syd old boy; just relax on Bondi Beach.

It'll help ease the pain of Starmer's dicking at the next GE. That is, if he's not removed before then.

tell me what you do Steve except rant and rave on a third tier football forum?

Come on, Sydney; everyone knows who does the most ranting and raving on this off-topic forum.

Oh, and by the way, I'm retired so I can do whatever I want. How about you? What do you do?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

What do you think would happen to the cost of living if 15 million people had their wages increased by up to 50%?

It's not heartless or uncaring or even (God forbid!) Blairite, to ask that. I want to see poverty reduced. I want to see low wages rise. But it is a generation long job to do that. Doing it by the method that McDonald resigned over wouldn't solve the issue. Meanwhile, it WOULD throw the economy into chaos.

But let's be grown up about it eh? You and I both know McDonald's resignation was nothing to do with this issue.

[albie]

BST,

You are on the wrong page with this.

The steady increase has been taking place for the last 10 years or more, under the Low Pay Commission guidance
.
No-one is suggesting a 50% increase on current minimum wage levels in one move.
What is under consideration is the rate of annual increase in minimum wage levels, from the 2.2% in 2021.

If you have a target date of 2024, what rate of annual increase do you need to maintain living standards, in order to reach £15 by that time?

With inflation this year expected to be 4%, to keep on track for a higher level the rate of annual increase must accelerate.
 
We need to factor in the imminent price rises in energy costs coming through.
Not to do so would result in falling further behind and into fuel and food poverty.

There is a guide for those who do not know what this discussion is about;
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/153343/economics/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-minimum-wage/

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Albie, if we raise the minimum wage by £6 an hour over 3 years, who is paying for that?  How does the small business with minimal profits pay for that increase?

Wages have grown for the lowest really strongly, not just in the minimum wage increases but tax cuts.  They've gone further than I would have but I've also seen the impact on business with those wage increases, it's very tough to cope with that sort of scale.  How as a business owner would someone pay for that?  How can the pub round the corner cope with a 40% increase in staff costs?

Again you increase those wages to say £15 an hour it's not just that pay you increase but you've just killed the NHS budget increase, you've just created a problem for the guy who currently earns £15 an hour for a stressful job who now earns the same as someone who doesn't.  How do you propose you bridge that?

It's a fantasy world if you think everyone can be well off.  Closing that gap seems a nice ideology but there's a reason the well paid are well paid.  If the wages at the lower end increase, those on higher wages want the same.

[River Don]

If you raise the minimum wage so sharply, then business will just pass the cost on to the consumer and that inflation will erode the gains.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

To raise the minimum wage to £15 by 2024 requires three years of 19% increases. You cannot do that without inflation rocketing. It is simply not possible.

This is gesture politics from the Left, being used in a political fight.

If you are serious about wanting to help the lower paid, I'm more than happy to discuss serious policies. This isn't one.

[BillyStubbsTears]

If you raise the minimum wage so sharply, then business will just pass the cost on to the consumer and that inflation will erode the gains.

Precisely. Rises in minimum wage levels have to be done at rates that allow the entire economy to rebalance. Do it too fast and the outcome will be worse than the current situation.

[albie]

BFYP,

Higher earners pay for it....either by more progressive tax rates, or the introduction of a wealth tax.
I agree that there will be knock on effects.

The key principle is that of a Living Wage, that seems to me an ethical starting point.

If you argue that the knock on effects cannot be managed, you are saying that poverty pay is integral to the UK Economy, and that the consequences of that are deferred from rogue employers to the public purse via top up support.

The economic distortion is baked into the present economic package. That needs to be unpacked in order to rebase the system.

I think the Living Wage is one way to level up that inequality.
If you disagree, then say how you would manage the position of those not earning enough to keep heads above water?

What about the energy costs about to kick in.....widespread payment default is what I see coming?

[River Don]

If we really want to see a significant growth in the levels of low wages, then we have to increase productivity.

That's a big challenge.

[Ldr]

Is it time you just split into the centre left and hard left parties you clearly are. It’s painful to watch, like a couple who should divorce but are scared of being alone

[River Don]

I think the left just have to get over the idea of rapid, radical change. I don't think the UK public are ever prepared to vote for it.

It's got to be better to offer a moderate, prudent (as Gordon Brown was constantly reiterating) alternative and actually have a chance of delivering it.

But it seems that approach can't satisfy those on the left. So. Stalemate and leave the Tories to it.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

BFYP,

Higher earners pay for it....either by more progressive tax rates, or the introduction of a wealth tax.
I agree that there will be knock on effects.

The key principle is that of a Living Wage, that seems to me an ethical starting point.

If you argue that the knock on effects cannot be managed, you are saying that poverty pay is integral to the UK Economy, and that the consequences of that are deferred from rogue employers to the public purse via top up support.

The economic distortion is baked into the present economic package. That needs to be unpacked in order to rebase the system.

I think the Living Wage is one way to level up that inequality.
If you disagree, then say how you would manage the position of those not earning enough to keep heads above water?

What about the energy costs about to kick in.....widespread payment default is what I see coming?

How high do those earners have to be to pay for it? Which element do you target?

To say it's baked in well it isn't lower wages can be increased but more slowly than the ridiculous notion mentioned and should be alongside other social packages.

There's also lots of ways you can help those in the lower bracket in more effective ways. Eg subsidised public transport for low paid workers, increased childcare support for lower earners, winter fuel subsidy increases for those genuinely less well off all of these paid directly to the provider(s) to prevent abuse and tapered to economic situations.

All of this has to be balanced to ensure the balance of society is not impacted.  There's nothing wrong with supporting the less fortunate, absolutely not but that also can't be done in a way that makes it too rewarding not to work or do the hard/stressful jobs nor can it be passed ok solely to businesses.

Society will never be totally fair, it's impossible to have that, if it wasn't it would have happened by now.

[albie]

Labour conference has just passed support for the £15 minimum wage target;
https://labourlist.org/2021/09/labour-conference-backs-15-minimum-wage-and-sick-pay-at-living-wage/

[River Don]

The vote is little more than an aspiration, the leadership aren't bound by it. It's just highlighting the lack of unity again.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP,

Higher earners pay for it....either by more progressive tax rates, or the introduction of a wealth tax.
I agree that there will be knock on effects.

The key principle is that of a Living Wage, that seems to me an ethical starting point.

If you argue that the knock on effects cannot be managed, you are saying that poverty pay is integral to the UK Economy, and that the consequences of that are deferred from rogue employers to the public purse via top up support.

The economic distortion is baked into the present economic package. That needs to be unpacked in order to rebase the system.

I think the Living Wage is one way to level up that inequality.
If you disagree, then say how you would manage the position of those not earning enough to keep heads above water?

What about the energy costs about to kick in.....widespread payment default is what I see coming?

And what about the inflationary effect as those currently on £15/hour want to go to £24/hour and those on £24/hour want to got to £40/hr?

[albie]

Top whataboutery there, BST  ......I tip my hat to you!

RD,
Yes, it is not obligatory as you say.
Today the Bakers Union withdrew support from Labour over this (and other concerns).

If Starmer does not take his medicine, I feel others may follow, and that would not be in the interest of Labour.

So who is going to step down first, Steer Karma or RW?
The first half was a stinker.

[SydneyRover]

I'm an angry old man, so angry I'm damn well going to do ................... nothing

You don't have to do anything, Syd old boy; just relax on Bondi Beach.

It'll help ease the pain of Starmer's dicking at the next GE. That is, if he's not removed before then.

tell me what you do Steve except rant and rave on a third tier football forum?

Come on, Sydney; everyone knows who does the most ranting and raving on this off-topic forum.

Oh, and by the way, I'm retired so I can do whatever I want. How about you? What do you do?

I'm a community activist.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Top whataboutery there, BST  ......I tip my hat to you!

RD,
Yes, it is not obligatory as you say.
Today the Bakers Union withdrew support from Labour over this (and other concerns).

If Starmer does not take his medicine, I feel others may follow, and that would not be in the interest of Labour.

So who is going to step down first, Steer Karma or RW?
The first half was a stinker.

You clearly struggle with the concept of "Whataboutery" as much as Wellens's side struggles with the concept of football.

[albie]

Just as you struggle with the idea of electability, along with Keith, BST.

Keith reckons that opposing policies supported by the public is the key to winning elections, despite the evidence to the contrary;
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/09/poll-65-of-british-public-supports-15-minimum-wage

He just does not get the Politics game, does he?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Or maybe he knows more than the public.  Should politicians always follow public support?