What do you think the producers vs predators speech was about? Or, hell, half of Ed Miliband's leadership? He can't really have been said to not have been trying to make it socially unacceptable to get rich without paying regard to employees or wider society - the Sportsdirect and Boots attacks would never have happened had he not been trying to do that.

 

You're right, he does do it intermittently, but it's broken up by long stretches of him spouting guff about "applauding" people getting filthy rich or otherwise sucking up to the exploitative fat cats. The end result being virtually NOONE thinks of Ed Miliband as some kind of sincere crusader against the super-rich -- most people are either not aware of these attacks on the fat cats in the first place, or think he just says these things as gimmicks to win votes rather than being some consistent, thought-through principle which he'd follow through on in government. My own personal opinion, cynical though it may be, is even if he does manage to scrape into government, he won't have the nerve to follow through on any of it, given the lack of courage he's shown whenever he's attacked by the rich/Tory press.

 

Also, I'm a bit bemused by you thinking that you HAVE to be a socialist or some far-left loony to think that no individual deserves a multi-milllion salary. Even Thatcher once said she was "concerned" about the kind of salaries City bankers were getting! (Though admittedly she qualified that by saying she thought it was a necessary evil to compete internationally)

Edited March 17, 201510 yr by Danny

In Northern Irish election news, the two main unionist parties, the DUP and the UUP have just announced an electoral pact, where the UUP will stand aside in two constituencies to give the DUP a clear run on the unionist vote (including East Belfast, which the DUP lost to the wonderful Naomi Long in the last election), with the DUP standing aside in two constituencies (including Fermanagh/South Tyrone, which a unionist unity candidate lost by just 4 votes in the 2010 election). In practice, this will probably see the DUP gain 2 seats in May, bringing their total to 10, which I imagine will delight all of you.

You're right, he does do it intermittently, but it's broken up by long stretches of him spouting guff about "applauding" people getting filthy rich or otherwise sucking up to the exploitative fat cats.

 

When is it ever long stretches?! It says a lot that neither Charlie nor I even knew he'd agreed with the filthy rich comment to begin with.

 

Also, I'm a bit bemused by you thinking that you HAVE to be a socialist or some far-left loony to think that no individual deserves a multi-milllion salary. Even Thatcher once said she was "concerned" about the kind of salaries City bankers were getting! (Though admittedly she qualified that by saying she thought it was a necessary evil to compete internationally)

I think some earnings are absolutely obscene (and nothing brings out the hidden class warrior in me than going home past Liverpool Street on a Friday night), but I think in general a focus on individuals as opposed to corporations isn't especially effective as a way of sorting out inequality. A punitive individual tax rate is easy enough to escape and you lose the benefit of the tax as well. A corporation tax increase, not so much.

In Northern Irish election news, the two main unionist parties, the DUP and the UUP have just announced an electoral pact, where the UUP will stand aside in two constituencies to give the DUP a clear run on the unionist vote (including East Belfast, which the DUP lost to the wonderful Naomi Long in the last election), with the DUP standing aside in two constituencies (including Fermanagh/South Tyrone, which a unionist unity candidate lost by just 4 votes in the 2010 election). In practice, this will probably see the DUP gain 2 seats in May, bringing their total to 10, which I imagine will delight all of you.

FFS!

I think some earnings are absolutely obscene (and nothing brings out the hidden class warrior in me than going home past Liverpool Street on a Friday night), but I think in general a focus on individuals as opposed to corporations isn't especially effective as a way of sorting out inequality. A punitive individual tax rate is easy enough to escape and you lose the benefit of the tax as well. A corporation tax increase, not so much.

The likes of Starbucks and Amazon seem to be managing it rather effectively.

Because, frankly, it's close to impossible for someone to earn millions a year without screwing over their employees or their customers unethically in the process. There are very few people in the world who have that level of "God-given" talent or work ethic to make that level of money solely on their own.

No, no one has that god-given talent but in theory it's possible to have a successful business without screwing over your employees. That's the idea of a co-operative. Speaking of which...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/m...ts-staff-policy

No, no one has that god-given talent but in theory it's possible to have a successful business without screwing over your employees. That's the idea of a co-operative. Speaking of which...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/m...ts-staff-policy

 

Absolutely - but in such a business where employees are treated properly, it's unlikely there would be enough money left for the top executives to give themselves multi-million salaries.

Absolutely - but in such a business where employees are treated properly, it's unlikely there would be enough money left for the top executives to give themselves multi-million salaries.

Yeah, but there's a difference between correcting absurd wage inequalities and giving all your employees something decent to live on. A football club paying the living wage fails spectacularly at the former despite doing the latter to some extent.

Yeah, but there's a difference between correcting absurd wage inequalities and giving all your employees something decent to live on. A football club paying the living wage fails spectacularly at the former despite doing the latter to some extent.

Quite.

The likes of Starbucks and Amazon seem to be managing it rather effectively.

I'm taking as a given co-ordinated international action against corporate tax avoidance, given the current Tory government is one of the biggest blocks on that.

No, no one has that god-given talent but in theory it's possible to have a successful business without screwing over your employees. That's the idea of a co-operative. Speaking of which...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/m...ts-staff-policy

Yes, I read that at the weekend. It sounds great - and radical - in principle, but I'm not entirely convinced.

 

I think 50 employees is, perhaps, a little low but that is a relatively minor detail. My biggest concern is that it will be hard to frame legislation in a way that does not just allow employees to reduce wages (only for the plebs, of course, the executives wouldn't be expected to do anything so demeaning) and make the rest dependent on profits. If Miliband can find a way of ensuring his plan works as intended, then I'll support it.

If FRANCE can manage it...

If FRANCE can manage it...

Were they successful in avoiding my biggest concern when it was implemented?

One presumes a Socialist government wouldn't have left it in place had it led to worse outcomes than the minimum wage.

 

Speaking of the French model 35 HOUR WEEK NOW

Speaking of the French model 35 HOUR WEEK NOW

Good luck with that :lol: Just look at how much opposition there has been to the totally reasonable working hours directive.

Latest Sky News poll suggests this for seats: LibDems seem too low though.

 

Labour 280

Conservative 279

SNP 52

Lib Dem 14

UKIP 2

Plaid Cyrmu 3

Green 1

Others 19

The SNP won't get over 50, the Lib Dems won't get below 20, UKIP will probably get at least 4 or 5.

11 Ways Tony Blair was more Socialist than Ed Miliband

 

Especially potent today after Miliband and Balls have yet again confirmed they're mirroring the spending stance of one of the most right-wing governments in history.

The key passage on most of those being that most of those positions got ditched the second Blair didn't have to pay lip service (I'd take Michael Dugher's position on renationalisation as far more meaningful than anything Blair said), and we're also talking about a hugely different political context (I doubt an opposition Blair would have most of those positions if he were leader now in a 1996 mindset).

 

Immigration though, fair enough - but we knew that already.

Anyway, how many tax cuts did we all get today? If we're going to have to deal with this bollocks we might as well get a cheaper pint out of it.